John 6 Is Not About The Sacrament Of The Lord's Supper

By corporal manducation, we understand the eating of bread and wine, which Jesus Christ honoured with the title of bis body and blood, because they are the sacrament and commemoration of them. But our opponents pretend actually to eat the body of Jesus Christ with the mouth, and to transmit it into the stomach; and to support this very gross and Capernaitical manducation, they allege the sixth chapter, where Jesus says that he is the bread come down from heaven, and promises to give them his flesh to eat.

1. To believe that, we must purposely shut our eyes and contradict the Son of God, — for the whole discourse is ad dressed to the Jews of Capernaum, to whom he promises to give his flesh to eat. If by these words he promised to give them the Eucharist, he deceived them, for he never administered nor presented to them the Holy Supper.
2. That even appears by the time at which Jesus Christ pronounced this discourse. The Holy Supper was not then instituted, nor till about two years after. How could our Lord's disciples know that he spoke to them of the Eucharist which had yet no existence, and which had never yet been mentioned any where throughout this discourse?
3. Does our Lord make the slightest mention of the table, or of the cup, or of the supper, or of the breaking of bread, or of the distribution of bread among many? In short, there are none of those actions wherein the ad ministration of sacrament consists.
4. It is to be remarked, that Jesus Christ often speaks in the present tense. He does not say, "I shall be the bread of life, — I shall be the bread come down from heaven;" but "I am the bread come down from heaven, — I am the bread of life; and he who eats my flesh hath eternal life." He was, therefore, the bread of life before the Holy Supper was instituted; and this bread could be eaten, and was the nourishment of the soul, at the time when the Holy Supper was not yet in existence.
5. Now, that by eating and drinking the Lord means believing and confiding in himself, and thereby being made alive and sustained, he himself shews, saying, (verse 35,) "I am the bread of life; he who comes unto me shall never hunger; and whosoever believes in me shall never thirst." Who does not see that in this passage believe is put for drink, since thirst is quenched by believing; and as by the word come he speaks of a spiritual coming, so by the word drink he means a spiritual mode of drinking?
6. And when the Lord says, (verse 47,) "He that believeth on me hath eternal life, — I am the bread of life," who does not see that this bread is received by believing? For Jesus Christ shews how he is the bread of life, viz. that they who believe on him have eternal life.
7. Even the words on which our adversaries found the most, are those which are most adverse to them. The Lord says, (verse 53,) "Except ye eat the flesh, and drink the blood of the Son of Man, ye have no life in you." — Here it is evident that he speaks of a manducation necessary to salvation, and without which no one can be saved. He does not, therefore, speak of a corporal and oral manducation of the Sacrament, seeing that without it so many are saved. To say that this manducation is not necessary in the fact, but in wish and desire, is to approach to our belief, and to reduce the necessity to a spiritual manducation. Besides, to say that no one is saved without desiring to partake of the Lord's Supper, is to exclude John the Baptist and the malefactor who was crucified with our Lord, from salvation, neither of whom partook of it either by act or wish. And we might bring the example of many Pagans and idolaters who, by hearing the words of martyrs, were suddenly converted, and were executed the same hour, without ever having heard of this Sacrament, and consequently without having formed any wish to partake of it. Many suffered martyrdom without even being baptised, and therefore were far from being prepared to partake of the Eucharist.
8. The same thing likewise appears by what Jesus Christ adds in verse 54: "Whoso eateth my flesh hath eternal life." He does not speak of the manducation of the Sacrament, for many who eat of it have not eternal life. The usual evasion is, that Jesus Christ speaks of such as eat of this flesh worthily; from which it appears how clearly the truth is on our side. For, according to our be lief, the words of the Lord are true without any addition. — But our opponents, to extricate themselves, add their glosses, which proceed from their own invention, and not from the word of God. We may indeed eat of the bread unworthily, as Paul says, (I Cor. xi.) "whosoever shall eat this bread unworthily." But it is impossible to eat of the flesh of the Lord unworthily, since, as. we have shewn, to eat is to believe. We can no more believe in Jesus Christ unworthily than than we can love God unworthily, seeing that our worthiness consists in believing in Jesus Christ, and in loving God. This is what Cardinal Cajetan remarks on John vi. saying, "Jesus Christ does not say, whoso eats my flesh and drinks my blood worthily, but whoso eats and drinks; that we might know that he speaks of an eating and a drinking that has no need of modification," &c. It, therefore, clearly appears, that this discourse ought not to be understood literally; and that the Lord does not speak of eating and drinking the Sacrament, but of believing, and of being spiritually nourished by faith in his death.
10. The Lord adds, in v. 56: "He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him." These words are decisive of the controversy. For they would be false if they were understood of the manducation of the Sacrament, it being a thing certain that hypocrites and the profane, who participate in the Sacrament, do not dwell in Christ, nor Christ in them. They receive the Sacrament into their stomach, and there it is soon destroyed by digestion. But to dwell in Christ is to be united to him by the constant, lasting, and reciprocal union, between him and believers. — For Cornelius Jansenius very justly remarks, that "he who eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, dwells in me, and I in Him; that is to say, he is intimately united to me, and I to him." And then he proves it by other passages: "He that dwelleth in love, dwelleth in God, and God in him." 1 John iv. 16. And again: "He that keepeth his commandments, dwelleth in him, and he in him; and hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit he hath given us." Chap. iii. 24. Thence he infers that the Lord speaks in John vi. concerning a manner of eating peculiar to those who have faith working by love, and not of a corporal manducation, in which the wicked are partakers.
11. If, to have Christ dwelling in us, it be necessary to eat him with our mouths; for the same reason, it will be necessary that he should eat us, that we may dwell in him.
12. To direct our minds from carnal thoughts, Jesus adds, v. 63; "It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing." Since by Spirit he means his Spirit, by which we are regenerated, so also by flesh he means his human body. But it, he assures us, profits nothing — viz. by being taken in the way in which the Capernaites imagined. What would it profit a man to have Christ's head and feet in his stomach: or whether he swallowed it entire or by morsels? The absurdity is in each way equally great.
13. Jesus adds: "The words that I speak unto you are spirit and are life;" that is to say, life-giving and spiritual. They are quickening only to those who understand them spiritually, and who fancy no corporal or carnal manducation. This doctrine was maintained by Augustine, in his twenty-seventh Treatise Upon John. He asks: "What are we to understand by these words, they are spirit and life?" He replies: "It is necessary to understand them spiritually. Hast thou understood them spiritually? They are spirit and life to thee. Hast thou understood them carnally? In this manner, also, they are spirit and life, but not unto thee."
14. At this the Capernaites and some of his disciples were offended, and said, It is a hard saying. Then he answered, "What if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before?" Augustine favours us with an explanation of these words, also, in the Treatise just quoted: "What does he mean in these words? He there solves the question that perplexed them. They thought he would give them his body; but he said unto them he would certainly ascend entire into heaven. When ye see the Son of Man ascending into heaven, where he was before, then, at least, you will surely see that he does not give you bis body as ye thought, — then, at least, ye will understand that his grace is not consumed by morsels."

- Pierre Du Moulin, Anatomy of the Mass, Chapter 37

How the Church Benefits From Pædobaptism

The practice of baptizing the children of God's people, is of essential service to the interests of religion.

1. It is a sensible and positive proof of two of the prominent doctrines of revelation, — the depravity of infants, and their need of grace. It is the natural tendency of things in this world, for men to deny and disbelieve the moral corruption of human nature altogether; and, especially, to maintain the spotless innocence of newborn infants. That such errors as these would undermine the very foundation of the gospel, is certain. The denial of human depravity necessarily terminates in the denial of divine mediation; and the denial of the depravity of infants, is but the first step to the maintenance of adult innocence. The history of the church, too, bears ample testimony to the fact, that all such abatements of total human corruption, has finally terminated in the most dangerous heresies. Now, in the baptism of infants, the sinfulness of their natures, and their need of divine grace, are strikingly exhibited, and put beyond the power of contradiction.

2. This practice also impresses on the minds of all, the great importance of the salvation of children. From mistaken views of the innocence of children, or from their inferiority in society, there is a very great tendency to neglect their souls altogether. Thus both the minister and his people are apt, in contemplating the larger forms of human existence around them, to overlook those smaller ones, every where diffused through their families and churches. We preach for adults — we pray for adults, but forget the children. We spend our lives, for the most part, in attempting to straighten the old and sturdy oaks of the forest, while we bestow but little attention upon the saplings and twigs by their side. But wherever the duty of baptizing children has been well understood, and uniformly practised, there their salvation has always been a matter of corresponding interest and effort.

3. The administration of this ordinance to infants, also strengthens the faith and increases the fidelity of parents. The salvation of his child, is that which should burden a parent's heart much more than any thing besides. His relationship to his child, his affection for him, his influence over him, all, should make him seek this object above every other. Now, in the baptism of his child, such parent has his duty defined, his work laid out before him, and the offer of divine help for its execution afforded. The parent may be regarded as properly enough entering into the following soliloquy: 'If my child were not depraved, why baptize him? If he needed not regeneration, why apply to him its sign? If grace were not offered him, why am I commanded to bring him to a gospel ordinance? And if God will not bless my efforts, why enter into covenant with me in behalf of my offspring?' Surely, no parent can possibly attend to this important duty, without feeling, in his own soul, his faith confirmed and his desires elevated.

4. Again. The baptism of the young, promotes the interests of the church, by securing for them a proper religious training. It secures this training in two ways: first, by the propinquity of baptized children to the church; and secondly, by the obligations this ordinance imposes. This end is effected by the propinquity of such children to the professing church. We have already shown, that they stand on the very threshold of the spiritual temple. They occupy a kind of nursery, in the very porch of the Christian community. This being the case, they are neither foreigners nor strangers; but the very seed and offspring of the kingdom of Christ. Their situation yields to them the very best advantages they could possibly have, for the attainment of Christian knowledge. They are like young Samuel, whom his mother dedicated to the Lord, and had raised in the very tabernacle itself.

All the doctrines and hopes of religion, its institutions and blessings, are all theirs by birthright. Over them piety sheds her constant and hallowed influence. Faith, with all her witnesses for the truth, is continually pleading with their hearts. The voice of the Redeemer, saying, 'Suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven,' is continually rolling on their ears. For them, Hope is planting on the fair canopy of heaven an immortal star; and Charity, loveliest of the graces, is lightening in their tender countenances, the smiles of eternal joy, and spreading before them all the attractions of a life of holiness and peace. Thus circumstanced, how almost inevitable is the surrender of their youthful hearts to God.

But this practice also secures the religious training of the young, by the obligations it imposes. Obedience to divine commands is absolutely enjoined upon both those who administer and those who receive this ordinance. ' This is my covenant,' said God to Abraham, 'which ye shall keep.' And said Christ to his apostles, 'teach them to observe whatsoever I have commanded you.' There is an obligation, therefore, imposed upon the church, as well as upon the parent, to inculcate upon the young disciple the lessons of Christianity. There is also an obligation resting upon the child to receive and practise such instructions. Now it is evident, that, under such circumstances as these, the religious training of the child would be as effectually secured, as in the nature of things it could be in this life.

5. This practice also elevates the standard of piety in a church. This it does in at least three ways. First, by promoting the religion of the family. It awakens a deeper interest in the bosom of parents about the salvation of their offspring. It causes them to expect more, to undertake more. The consequence of this will be greater attainments of personal piety among parents themselves — more prayerfulness — more self-denial — more frequent fastings, and greater uniformity and consistency of deportment. And as he, who is most busy at home is most apt to be industrious abroad, so the domestic labors and piety of the parent, will but prepare him for entering into more extensive fields of usefulness and duty. But this end is also attained, by uniting and harmonizing the entire efforts of the whole church, in promoting the salvation of her children. From this field of enterprise no believer in Pædobaptism can feel himself excused: — the obligation is an universal one, the duty is common. The necessary consequence of this will be, the originating of all those schemes and plans, by which the minds of children may be reached and well indoctrinated in the truths of the gospel. Parents will teach at home — the Pastor and Elders will visit and catechise — Infant and Sabbath Schools will be gotten up and supported — ordinary schools and academics will be established on Christian principles — and every possible instrument wielded, in order to secure an object so grand and so obligatory. Now, in the carrying forward of such a work as this, consists the very vitality of religion in a church. A stagnant religion can have no existence. Piety is active and benevolent in her very nature. The more, therefore, that a church is usefully employed, the more vigorous will be the exercises of grace among her members. Nor will the good work terminate with the immediate children of the church. Christians would become, under such circumstances, 'nursing fathers and mothers' to the offspring of unbelieving parents. They would be ready to feel for wretchedness, wherever it existed; and thus to diffuse their prayers, their sympathies, and their alms, over the whole world. The other way in which this practice would accomplish the end contemplated is, by furnishing candidates for admission into the church with the most eminent qualifications. Being born and raised in the very nursery of piety, and enjoying the very best opportunities for the improvement of the mind, and the cultivation of the heart, the children of the church would not only be early introduced into full membership, but would come in with advantages for a pious life, which no others could possibly enjoy.

6. This practice also renders the preaching of the gospel more efficient. One of the greatest evils with which the ministry has to contend is, the encountering of that opposition which arises from the ignorance, stupidity, prejudices, errors, and profligacy, which result from the neglect of domestic training. To enlighten a mind long enshrouded in the grossest ignorance, to awaken a conscience long seared in stupidity and sin, to bend a will long accustomed to its own control, to purify affections polluted with the grossest indulgences, to unfetter a soul manacled and chained in impiety, thus to transform the very image of Satan into that of Christ, is a work as discouraging as it is difficult. The filling of the house of God with such hearers as these, is but to render preaching a most hopeless task. It is like sending for the physician when the patient is in the very agony of death. It is to expect reformation, when the principle to be reformed is itself almost entirely annihilated by a course of abandoned profligacy. It is but to tempt God, and require miracles. In this case, the ministry becomes almost an insupportable burden, and is likely to be attended with little or no success. On the contrary, where parents have been faithful in the discharge of their duty, and where, by his early baptism, the youth has been placed under the inspection and control of the church, the work of pulpit instruction becomes both easy and pleasant. In such cases, the conscience is tender, the heart impressible, and the disposition tractable. Long accustomed to venerate his spiritual teacher, the young man esteems him as a father and loves him as a friend. He values his counsels and receives his instructions. His place in the church is agreeable and easy; and every thing connected with religion has, to the view of his mind, a lovely aspect, and exerts upon him a softening influence. The triumphs of the gospel, under such circumstances, must always be great and glorious. The work of saving men is much more than half accomplished in the family. Thus, while the pulpit upholds and sustains the piety of the family, in its turn the latter upholds and sustains that of the pulpit.

7. Another advantage which this practice renders the church is, that it offers the greatest possible inducement to unbelievers to embrace religion. The command to them is like that to Noah, 'Come thou and all thy house into the ark.' The same covenant that embraces the parent, is also extended to the children; the same seal by which grace is offered and confirmed to him, is likewise applied to his offspring. When, therefore, an ungodly father sees, on the one hand, the great injury he is rendering his family, through his impenitence and unbelief; and on the other, the great advantage he may be to them by becoming truly pious; how irresistible are the reasons that thus operate upon his mind? And how powerful must be those appeals, from the sacred desk, to such parents, which represent them as placed in the fearful alternatives, of either bearing their children along with them to hell; or lifting them up by their faith to the abodes of blessedness! What parent's heart can be steeled to such entreaties and motives as these?

Samuel Jones Cassels, Lectures on Pædobaptism (1834), Lecture 12: The Reception of Children into Church-Membership

The Subjects of Baptism

The Subjects of Baptism

By Dr. Wilhelmus à Brakel

 

We have thus held before you baptism and its essential nature. It is evident that baptism is the first New Testament sacrament, a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, instituted by God, and its admini­stration commanded by the Lord Jesus to His apostles—and in them to all ministers. This administration consists in the act of immersion or sprinkling with clean water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, thereby signifying and sealing to believers the cleansing of the soul from the guilt and pollution of sin by the blood and the Spirit of Christ, as well as the incorporation into the congregation of Christ so that through faith, love, and holiness, they may glorify God, be an ornament to the church, convict the unconverted, and stir up believers.

 

The Subjects of Baptism

In addition to that which has been said, it is necessary that we also consider the subjects of baptism; that is, those to whom bap­tism must be administered. These are not clocks or similar objects which the Papists baptize, thereby dreadfully desecrating baptism. Rather, the objects must be men, and then the true believers among men. Only true believers are entitled to the use of the sacraments. However, since the church is not authorized to require assurance of the probability of regeneration as the foundation upon which the minister may administer the sacraments to someone, all who have made confession of their sins, of their faith in Christ, and of their determination to follow in the footsteps of Jesus and to lead a life which is in harmony with their confession, may rightfully and in good conscience be baptized. If the persons who are baptized are either unconverted or hypocrites, they are responsible and bap­tism is not a seal to them. They are neither partakers of the covenant nor are they entitled to its benefits. This is confirmed in the following passages: "And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins. I indeed baptize you with water unto repen­tance:... Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance" (Mat. 3:6-11, 8); "Repent, and be baptized every one of you" (Acts 2:38);

"...if thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest" (Acts 8:37).

If someone has therefore entered into the covenant— whether it be in truth or in an external sense— and has been baptized, they are also obligated to surrender their children to Christ by way of the covenant and thus permit them to be baptized, as the covenant has also been made with their children. Before we prove this, we must, for a further exposition of infant baptism, make a few prefatory remarks.

 

The Baptism of Children

First, children to be baptized must 1) not be children of Jews, Muslims, heathens, or heretics, even if a member of the covenant has adopted them as children, for such adoption does not change the fact that they were not born within the covenant; 2) not be abandoned children in a country where the true church is not found, or if the true church is present, is filled with Jews, Muslims, heathens, Socinians, and other heretics, for such children can belong to the latter as well as to members of the covenant; 3) not be children of parents who have both been excommunicated— having been born subsequent to this excommunication— since such parents must be considered as heathens (Mat. 18:17); and 4) not be children who as yet are unborn, or who are miscarried— as the Papists do.

Instead, they must be

1) children of members of the covenant; that is, one or both must be members of the covenant (1 Cor. 7:14);

2) they may also be children of members of the covenant who are born as a result of adultery; or 3) children of those who are under censure, for the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father.

Secondly, the place where children ought to be baptized has not been determined by Scripture and does not belong to the essence of baptism. However, where the church conducts public worship services, it is edifying that it take place during a worship service.

Thirdly, subsequent to the breaking of the covenant of works, God established a covenant of grace with man. Never, that is, neither in the Old nor in the New Testament has He established an external covenant wherein both converted and unconverted alike would be members on equal footing, such that God, upon external obedience, would have promised some external benefits, regardless of what name may be given to this covenant, such as a national, typical, worldly, or external covenant. One may therefore not baptize children in reference to an external covenant, but only in reference to the covenant of grace.

Fourthly, one can view elect children either as they are from God's perspective, or as they are in themselves. God knows them as being elect, as heirs of eternal life, and as being redeemed through the death of their Surety, Jesus Christ. As they are in themselves, they are identical to all other children, missing the image of God, having the image of the devil, without the seed of faith, without regeneration and the least gracious inclination, with­out the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and thus, hateful and worthy of condemnation. Therefore, the basis for their baptism is neither^ a measure of grace which they have within themselves, nor eternal I election, which is hidden for us.

Fifthly, God could either partially or fully sanctify children from infancy on. All children would have entered the world as being perfectly holy if Adam had not sinned. This was the condition in which Christ was born (being perfectly holy), and in which elect infants are, who at their death are sanctified as perfectly as an adult believer is sanctified. God generally does not do this, however. Even if He does so with certain persons by way of exception, it is neither a precedent nor clear proof of this. Therefore, we state again that the basis for the baptism of children is not some inherent quality.

Sixthly, baptism is a sign and a seal, and thus has no other function but a signifying and sealing function. It neither works grace by way of inherent efficacy, nor is it an external sign whereby, whereupon, or wherewith God works regeneration. It is not comparable to what Christ did to make the miracle very obvious, availing Himself of something tangible in the performance of His miracles; nor is it comparable to the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit being communi­cated by the laying on of hands. Thus, the gracious operations of the Spirit are not bound to the time or the administration of baptism. Baptism also does not bring the child into an internal state other than was previously the case, and God does not love the child with the love of His delight any more than before. Rather, the entire efficacy of baptism consists in this— that it seals the covenant of grace and all its promises to the child. This is not to suggest that the child has / them already, but rather that the child is entitled to them and that God will accomplish this in this child. It is thus similar to the manner in which future benefits are sealed to adult believers.

Seventhly, all children of members of the covenant (irrespective of whether these members are converted or unconverted) who die in infancy—be it prior to or after the administration of baptism — must be considered as saved by virtue of God's covenant in which they were born and in consequence of which they are children of the covenant. If the parents are unconverted and unfaithful to the covenant, this will be imputed to their account, for the son will not bear the iniquity of the father. One must also consider them to be true partakers and children of the covenant as they grow older, until they show by their deeds that they are unfaithful to the covenant and thus are no partakers of its prom­ises. They then do not fall out of grace, nor is the seal nullified; rather, it is a proof that baptism was not a seal for them and that they have never truly been in the covenant. When, however, some are converted after leading a sinful life, baptism was a seal unto them, and they were thus truly included in the covenant and in very deed are partakers of its benefits, being entitled to them already since their childhood. This is true, even though between their baptism and conversion there was but an external resemblance to members of the covenant— in reference to both their personal spiritual state and sound judgment of others. Baptism only seals the elect.

Eighthly, the form for baptism asks of parents and witnesses, "Whether you acknowledge... that they (their children) are sanctified in Christ, and therefore, as members of His church ought to be baptized?" In order to understand this question correctly, it must be noted:

(1) This form addresses members of the covenant and speaks of their children.

(2) To be sanctified does not imply that the children at that moment are in truth possessors of the principle of faith, regeneration, and sanctification. It also does not imply that all baptized children are, and particularly, that my child is elect, will be converted, and be a partaker of salvation. Rather, it means in a general sense that chil­dren of members of the covenant, by virtue of the covenant made with them and their children, are entitled to its benefits and will become partakers of them. This is in distinction to the children of those who are not members of the covenant and for whom there are no promises in the Word. The salvation of the latter, if they die in infancy, is a matter which pertains to the sovereign and secret dealings of God, there being no foundation in regard to which something can be stated about them. And as long as children of members of the covenant manifest nothing which is either in their favor or disfavor, we may not discriminate among them, but by reason of the promise must deem them to be children of God until the contrary manifests itself. Therefore, to be sanctified in Christ means to be a partaker of Christ.

(3) To be sanctified does not mean to be included in an external covenant, for there is no external covenant. The parents have the \ salvation of their child in view, and not something of an external) nature. The sacraments are not seals of an external covenant, but only of the covenant of grace, and signs and seals of the righteous- J ness of faith. Also the child is acknowledged as being sanctified in Christ, which cannot be said in reference to an external covenant.

It is furthermore acknowledged that the child is sanctified prior to baptism, and therefore ought to be baptized. The child therefore does not become a member of the covenant by virtue of baptism; he was already a member prior to baptism, and prior to the child's baptism there was also no other covenant but the covenant of grace.

(4) Some wish to change the form and say, "to be sanctified in Christ, or those who are sanctified, must be sanctified in Christ." This is the result of ignorance and misunderstanding concerning this matter. If they wish these words to mean something different than to be in the covenant of grace (which appears to be the intent), I cannot understand on what basis they let their children or other children be baptized, since there is no other foundation for bap­tism but the covenant of grace, of which baptism is a seal.

 

The Scriptural Defense for the Baptism of Children

Having said this by way of introduction, we must now consider the following question:

Question: May and must children of members of the covenant be baptized?

Answer: Anabaptists, Socinians, and Brownists answer nega­tively, but we answer in the affirmative for the following reasons:

First, in the Old Testament children of members of the cove­nant had to be circumcised; therefore they must also be baptized in the New Testament. The first part of the statement is above controversy. The argument for the conclusion is as follows:

(1) Since there is one and the same covenant in both testaments, and this identical covenant also pertains to the children of the Old Testament who were obligated to receive the seal of circumcision, this is also true in the New Testament and they must therefore be baptized.

(2) Baptism has come in the place of circumcision; the external sign has changed, but the seal is the same. "In whom also ye are circumcised... buried with Him in baptism" (Col. 2:11-13). He who is baptized is said to be circumcised, since they are in essence one and the same sacrament.

(3) In both sacraments the same matter is signified and the purpose is identical: cleansing by the blood and the Spirit of Christ. If children had to be circumcised then, they must also be baptized today.

Secondly, children were baptized in the Old Testament. "…that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea" (1 Cor. 10:1-2). It is irrefutable that all their children were included here (Exo. 10:24). In a manner comparable to being baptized by immersion in water, they were all in the sea, and the water in the cloud which was always above them, covered them. This baptism was a seal of their spiritual deliverance, having escaped from the hands of Pharaoh by the water of the sea. They were overshadowed by the cloud— and thus protected against the heat of the sun and the Lord Jesus was present in this cloud (Exo. 14:24). If children were then baptized as members of the covenant, they must also presently be baptized, for they are as much members of the covenant now as they were then.

Thirdly, the children of members of the covenant are in the covenant, and they therefore are also entitled to the seals of the covenant. Their inclusion in the covenant is evident in Genesis 17:7, "And I shall establish My covenant between Me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations." This was not only true in the Old but also in the New Testament, for believers from among the Gentiles also are Abraham's seed and are thus included in that covenant. "…that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised" (Rom. 4:11). Peter also confirms this: "Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed" (Acts 3:25). Add to this 1 Corinthians 7:14, where we read, "...else were your children unclean; but now are they holy." They do not have internal holiness, as has been proven in the above; rather, they are called holy because one of the parents is a believer, thereby being in the covenant. The holiness of such children is therefore a covenantal holiness.⁴ An external covenant does not exist, for there is but one covenant between God and believers: the covenant of grace. The children of members of the covenant are therefore in the covenant. In this respect the Lord calls them His children. "Moreover thou hast taken thy sons and thy daughters, whom thou \ hast borne unto Me... that thou hast slain My children" (Ezek. 1 16:20-21). If they are in the covenant, they must also indeed receive \ the seal of the covenant. This is evident in Acts 2:38-39, where we read, "…be baptized every one of you…for the promise is unto you, and to your children."

Fourthly, children are partakers of the benefits of the covenant, the merits of Christ, the promises, and salvation itself. "But Jesus said. Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto Me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven" (Mat. 19:14). These were not children in the spiritual sense of the word, characterized by humil­ity, but rather natural children who were brought to Jesus, and who were kept away from Him by others, since they were deemed to be too unimportant. The Lord Jesus declares them to be partak­ers of the kingdom of heaven, of which one cannot be a partaker except through Christ. Who then would dare to exclude those children from heaven who die in infancy? Consider also Acts 2:39, where we read that the promise is to your children. Those who are partakers of the promises of the covenant are also entitled to the seal of the covenant and its promises.

 

Objection #1: Nowhere is a command found to baptize children.

Answer:

(1) Scripture has been given to rational people who know that all must be understood to be members of the covenant who are in the covenant— whether this is the husband, the wife, or the children.

(2) It also is not written: Baptize a man, or baptize a woman, nor are they mentioned by first and last name.

(3) We read in Genesis 17:12, "And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations." In Acts 2:38-39 we read, ". ..be baptized every one of you... for the promise is unto you, and to your children."

 

Objection #2: Children cannot benefit from this; they do not understand it, and they frequently cry when they are baptized.

Answer:

(1) One must not be wiser than God who has thus commanded it.

(2) Any additional objections would also be applicable to the circumcision of children.

(3) The parents are comforted by baptism. It obligates and stimulates them to view their children as members of the covenant and to raise them as such. And when children come to the years of discretion, they may derive as much benefit from it as persons who are baptized as adults.

 

Objection #3: Christ was not baptized until he was thirty years old; we must therefore also wait with baptism until children come to the years of discretion.

Answer:

(1) We would have to conclude from this that one cannot be baptized before thirty years of age. This is refuted by their own practice.

(2) The institution of baptism was not until that time.

(3) Christ had been circumcised in His youth.

Objection #4: One ought first to be instructed, repent, and believe before being permitted to be baptized (cf. Mat. 28:19; Acts 2:38; 8:37-38; Mark 16:16).

Answer:

(1) It is also written, "...if any would not work, neither^ should he eat" (2 Th. 3:10). Should we then deprive children of food? ) Who does not see that in both cases the reference is to adults?

(2) We may not baptize any children except those of members of the covenant. Therefore, parents must first become members of the covenant, and as far as they are concerned, instruction, repen­tance, and faith must precede. These texts therefore do not run counter to the baptism of children of members of the covenant.

How You View The Church Affects Your View Of The Sacraments

The longer I study theology, the more I see how one point of doctrine or practice hangs upon another. Since my shift from Arminian Pentecostalism to Reformed soteriology, I have noticed that little by little, other aspects of my thinking have changed as well. As my grasp of the Reformed understanding of Covenant has become firmer and clearer, I have noticed profound changes on many other aspects of my theological stances. Sometimes the changes have been sudden, like a lightbulb going on; other times the changes have occured by imperceptible degrees. This realization, more than anything else, has shown me the importance of doctrine. It frequently turns out that any thought I have about some given subject hangs upon a previous question and affects a subsequent issue. My views on the Church, end times, and the sacraments have all undergone monumental changes stemming from my finally submitting to the Scripture's actual teaching about the nature of salvation.

One of the most profound changes in my theology has been regarding the question of the subjects of baptism. Here again, is a question which hangs upon a previous question. Inability to see this fact stunts most dialogue among Christians regarding the issue. Our doctrine of the Church will inevitably determine how we answer this question of who are fit subjects for Christian baptism. If we believe what Rome teaches - that She is the institute of salvation and it is only through the instrumentality of Her ordinances that we are united to Christ - then we will answer the question one way. But if we answer the question as Protestants, believing that Christ puts us in relation to the Church (and not the other way around) and that only those who are already in relation to Him have a right to the privileges of His house, then we will answer the question in quite a different way.

All Protestants are agreed upon the foregoing assertion. The division in Protestant ranks occurs when we inquire how "relation to Christ" is to be determined or defined. Some have a very narrow view and therefore are exclusive in administering baptism. They seek demonstrative evidence of participation in Christ before they baptize. This is the Baptist view and hence, this is why they exclude infants from baptism. If we define "relation to Christ" in a wider sense, we tend to be more inclusive. The former position is, as I said, the Baptist view; the latter is the general Protestant view. Since the Reformation, the Protestant view of the Church has been that of a Covenant community which acknowledges that covenant is not coextensive with election. Baptism is the sacrament which grants entrance into the Covenant people; it does not assert, affirm, guarantee or even suggest election.

The weakness of the Baptist system, as I see it, is that it attempts the impossible. No minister on earth (or in Heaven, for that matter) can read the heart. What does that mean? It means that no one, no matter how wonderful a display of Christian character he exhibits, is ever baptized based on a certain, infallible knowledge of his relation to Christ. We all are far too familiar with people who, at one time, appeared to be shining examples of Christian character, who are now up to their ears in sin. I personally know of men who were once preachers, who are now self-proclaimed atheists. No baptism is ever, ever administered based on knowledge. Presumption is the best that can be attained. Once one admits this, the whole Baptist argument is ceded. Furthermore, it seems that the only ground for the presumption of inclusion in Christ's body that can be invented is personal profession of faith. I hesitate not in stating that a human profession is no more solid a foundation upon which to build than is a Divine promise. It follows therefore that if baptism is administered, always and only, on presumption, and not knowledge, then we must baptize everyone we presume to belong to God's people. This most certainly must include the infant children of believers since there are so many precious promises of God to pious parents concerning their children - promises, I might add, that are as comforting and encouraging to devout credobaptist parents as they are to devout paedobaptist parents.

Children of believers in the Church of God in its Old Testament form were included, at God's express command, in the Covenant people by the parallel rite of circumcision. Never was there a hint that they would at some point in time be exluded from the people of God. The New Testament goes to great lengths to assure us that salvation in the New Testament ecomony is much more inclusive: There is no Jew or Gentile, Greek or barbarian, male or female, slave or free. Are we to take it for granted that though the doors have been flung open to men and women from every tribe and tongue, yet the children of the Covenant people are to be banished and treated as pagan children until they can make a profession of faith which give us nothing more certain than presumption of inclusion in Christ's Church anyway?

Furthermore, the historical evidence for the practice of infant baptism needs to be explained. It was the universal practice of the Church for 1500 years. I say that the burden of proof falls to the objectors since they are parting ways with historic Christian doctrine and practice. There is no hint anywhere in all of the corpus of patristic literature of paedobaptism being a Gentile innovation. The earliest believers were largely Jews and it is from them the the Gentile believers learned to read and understand the Old Testament and it is from them that Gentile believers learned Christain doctrine and practice. There is explicit reference to infant baptism in the works of Irenaeus. It is noteworthy that Irenaeus mentions the practice as if it were something that all of his readers well well aware of. The way that the subect is dealt with by Augustine and the Pelagians makes it clear that it was the universal and unquestioned practice of the Church during that period of time. The same can be said of the earlier ages of Cyprian and Tertullian. Whenever the practice has been objected to, the objection has always seemd to rest on one of two contrary misconceptions: an overestimation of the effects of baptism or an underestimation of the need of salvation for infants.

Those who held to Tertullian's erroneous view saw baptism as a removing of sins committed up to the date at which the sacrament was administered. The danger was that one might commit many more sins, for which there woud be no removal. Hopefully you can see what a faulty view this is of the efficacy of the atonement. Sins are forgiven and washed away by Christ's meritrious, vicarious sacrifice - not by baptism. Overvaluing baptism in this way belittles Christ mediatorial work and demands sinless perfection after baptism. Babies can not be expected to live a life of sinless perfection, nor can anyone else for that matter. This is why advocates of Tertullian's view tried to put baptism off as late as possible. Some were said to postpone until their deathbeds. There is an inherent danger in this system: no one knows when he or she will die. In postponing your baptism, you run the risk of dying unexpectedly and never receiving baptism. This meant that you die without having your sins washed away. That is, in a nutshell (or better yet, nutcase) the flaw in baptismal regeneration.

The other view is just as flawed. The question of whether infants need salvation is an uncomfortable subject and many a Calvinist has been villified for suggesting the possiblity that there might be non-elect people who die in infancy. This of course means that there could be sweet, lovable, innocent little babies in hell. This is a train of thought that not many have ever had the nerve to go down. It is a painful subject, no doubt. But regardless of anything else, we must ask: When does a person become a sinner? If we answer that we, as Scripture declares, are all estranged from the womb and conceived in iniquity, then there doesn't seem to be anything inherently unjust about a baby suffering hell for being a sinner. We find that hard to swallow since we all instinctively think of babies are morally innocent. But no self-respecting Protestant, the foregoing implications aside, will say that people are born in a state of moral innocence like Adam and their being a sinner is a trait that develops later in time. We all affirm that we are born sinners. And so it seems that advocates of the opposite of Tertullian's view are guilty of an equally eggregious blunder. They affirm that all people are sinners, infants included, but baptize on the basis of a system that only holds together logically if infants are morally innocent and have no need of salvation. Let me back up and clear the decks: baptism does not convey salvation. But among other things, it signifies that every member of the Covenant people of God stands in need of the same washing from sin, and that adults, like infants, bring nothing to the table.

The Sacramental Beauty of Baptism

Every baptism administered, including our children's baptism, is, in one sense, more about the Church that it is about the children. That is because the Church is a living organism. It is a body: God's covenant people. The congregation is the covenant family of God. We have often lost the grasp of Covenant Theology which our forefathers had. When we view the congregation as a collection of individuals, then we are not thinking along the lines of Covenant Theology: we are thinking like Baptists. The congregation is a living organism.

As with all living organisms, there is included some dead matter. For instance, the hair and nails of my body (which is a living organism), though they are not living material, they are nevertheless part of the living organism. So when we view the Church as a living organism, we acknowledge that there are those among us who are not living partakers of covenant life.

Baptism sacramentally reminds us of God's covenant faithfulness. It is vital to remember that baptism is a sacrament. So many people view baptism as pertaining primarily to the children being baptized. But that is not the primary focus of baptism. Baptism is first and foremost a sacrament in the full sense of that word. Baptism, like the Lord's Supper, is the wonderful means ordained by God, whereby it pleases Him to communicate to us the promises of the Gospel. The sacraments are God's ordained way to visibly reaffirm His covenant faithfulness. This means that baptism is administered, first of all for the benefit of the whole congregation. Through the sacrament of baptism God's confirms His covenant to His people. The baptism of the child is a means toward that end.

Our children's baptism is God's affirmation that they are received unto grace in Christ; that they are welcome; that they may take refuge in the Savior. We need to point our children to Christ as early as possible, because that's what their baptism communicates. The very sacrament of baptism itself confirms that what our children need is regeneration in order to be living members of the kingdom of God. This is what is signified by the dipping or sprinkling of water. In baptism, God the Father confirms to His Church as an organic body, and to His children individually, that He makes an eternal covenant of grace with us. Every time the baptismal formula is repeated, the congregation as a whole, as well as the individual members of it, may take comfort from the reaffirmation of God the Father's unbreakable and eternal covenant of grace with them. God's children should never be in doubt whether that relationship with Him is an abiding relationship. As often as baptism is administered, we are reminded of these truths and are sacramentally reassured of God's faithfulness.

Baptism reassures God's children of the efficacy of the atoning work of God the Son. We are reminded over and over through the sacrament of baptism that Christ's work for our sins is finished and that He has paid for them all. We have assurance that we may repair the the cleansing fount again and again. We need not be in doubt whether or not our sins have been forgiven. Baptism sacramentally reminds the Church that she has been washed in the blood of the Lamb.

Baptism also demonstrates the sealing work of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit seals us and dwells in us, assuring us that we will be continually sanctified as members of the body of Christ. This is a tremendous reassurance because we often grieve the Holy Spirit with our sin. We learn in baptism, that although we sin, we cannot sin His presence away. He may withhold His operation in us to chastise us for grieving Him, but He will never depart. Baptism is the reassurance of this truth. God sacramentally reassures His people of the ongoing indwelling presence of His Holy Spirit and that the work of the Spirit cannot possibly fail.

It is so important to grasp that baptism, like the Lord's Supper is a Sacrament, not simply an ordinance. Reducing it to an ordinance removes all the emphasis from God's covenantal faithfulness to His people and place the focus on the act of the individual believer. Baptism is for the benefit of the whole congregation, first of all as a sacrament. It is secondary that it initiates the child into the covenant community. Reversing this order, placing the infant being baptized in focus, reveals a Baptistic mindset regarding baptism. It places the individual over the family to which he belongs. In baptism we enter the covenant community, we do not supersede it. This is, at bottom, the difference between credobaptists and paedobaptists. Credobaptists always put, in our estimation, undue emphasis, on the individual and his/her decision to join with God's people.

The Reformed theologians of generations past, in order to affirm their belief that in baptism our children are received unto grace (not: they are recipients of grace), simply quote Genesis 17:7. Why quote from here rather than from a New Testament passage? Because they took all of Scripture in order to establish the doctrine of baptism. The Old Testament is the great presupposition of the New Testament. There is an organic unity of the two Testaments. The entire Old Testament is the foundation of the practice of infant baptism. So when a Baptist asks you to show him a text in the Bible that demands that infants be baptized, you can say, "That is very simple. The entire Old Testament is my text." The entire Old Testament demands the inclusion of children in the visible manifestation of God's covenant people: the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ. The entire Old Testament bears witness to this text of Genesis. The theme is that God is the God of His people and of their seed. This theme is woven all through the Old Testament. It is the very warp and woof of Old Testament theology. That is why the New Testament opens with genealogies. It is demonstrating to us that God is faithful to His covenant to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.