Part 1
Transcribed from the 1842 Josiah Fletcher edition by David Price.
THE BAPTISM OF THE PRINCE.
* * * * *
A SERMON
PREACHED IN
PRINCE’S STREET CHAPEL, NORWICH,
ON SUNDAY MORNING, JAN. 23, 1842,
IN ANTICIPATION OF THE BAPTISM OF HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE PRINCE OF WALES.
* * * * *
BY JOHN ALEXANDER.
* * * * *
Published by Request.
* * * * *
NORWICH: JOSIAH FLETCHER, UPPER HAYMARKET; SOLD ALSO BY JARROLD AND SONS, NORWICH; AND BY JACKSON AND WALFORD, LONDON.
1842.
_Price Fourpence_.
* * * * *
PREFACE.
THE Author of the following discourse hopes it will appear from the perusal of it, that the baptism of infants is a practice which he not only believes to be scriptural, but which he warmly and devoutly loves. As a parent, and as a pastor, one of his most delightful employments has been the dedication of his own children, and of the children of others, to the God of mercy. He endeavours also to cherish in his own heart, and in the hearts of others, the assurance that baptism is a sign of spiritual influences, which our covenant God will graciously bestow upon our children, if we disciple them to Christ by gospel instruction as well as by water, and if we “teach them to observe all things whatsoever Christ has commanded.” The connection between our baptized households and church membership is so intimate, that children should be trained for communion by the parent, as well as by the pastor; and every baptized family should thus strive to be a church of Christ, and seek to possess, by the grace of God, a domestic as well as an individual relationship to “the general assembly and church of the first-born.” Were this made the object of more anxious and prayerful effort, the degree of success, divinely granted, would surprise and bless our hearts; the sacred ordinance in which we delight, would be less ridiculed than it is; the fatal mistakes which are made relative to it, would be corrected; and it would soon become, as in primitive times, universally practised. “If infant baptism were more improved,” says Philip Henry, “it would be less disputed.”
The following discourse is not put forth as a complete treatise on the subject of baptism. It is the mere outline of one branch of an argument which is briefly stated, and which is not even defended from the customary objections. It was preached, and is now published, not so much for those who deny the ordinance to their children, as for those who practice it; to remind them of the privilege which they enjoy, and of the consequent responsibility which they incur. Nothing is said in the sermon about _the mode_ of baptizing, because the object which the preacher had in view did not require it; and because, during the time of its delivery, he was desirous to occupy the attention of his hearers with matters of more importance than the question, Whether, in baptism, the water is to be applied to the person, or the person to the water?—though he believes that the former mode is more scriptural and more seemly than the latter.
AS THE DISCOURSE WAS OCCASIONED BY THE BAPTISE OF THE PRINCE OF WALES, THE HEIR APPARENT TO THE BRITISH THRONE, IT IS NOW PUBLISHED WITH THE EARNEST DESIRE AND PRAYER, THAT HE MAY BE SPARED TILL, AT SOME DISTANT DAY, HE SHALL REALIZE “THE TRUE IDEA OF A PATRIOT KING;” AND THAT THE ROYAL HOUSE INTO WHICH HE IS BORN, MAY FROM ONE GENERATION TO ANOTHER, PRESENT SUCCESSIVE PRINCES TO THE THRONE OF BRITAIN, WHO SHALL RULE IN RIGHTEOUSNESS, AND WHO, IN THE SCRIPTURAL SENSE OF THE LANGUAGE, SHALL BE “NURSING FATHERS, AND NURSING MOTHERS,” TO THE CHURCH OF CHRIST.
NORWICH, FEBRUARY 1, 1842.
SERMON.
MY DEAR FRIENDS,
As it has been publicly announced that the infant Prince of Wales will be baptized on Tuesday next, a suitable opportunity is now afforded for directing your attention to the subject of baptism generally, and especially to the interest which little children have in the affections of the Saviour; I propose, therefore, to address you this morning from
MARK x, 13–16.
“And they brought young children to him that he should touch them; and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. But when Jesus saw it he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them.”
The scene presented by these words is indescribably lovely; and the eye that contemplates it, must affect the heart of the beholder with every tender and grateful feeling. It exhibits the eternal Son of God holding in his arms the infant of a day; laying his mighty and merciful hand upon its head; and bestowing upon it his own effectual blessing. Wonderful as all this is, it is however in perfect harmony with the whole of his character, and of the great work which he came to accomplish. The infants which were now brought to him, ignorant and helpless as they were, were creatures which he himself had formed, and which he had inspired with the breath of life, and with the germ of all those intellectual and moral faculties which would render them immortal and responsible to God. He, therefore, who guides the flight of the sparrow as well as of the archangel, cares for the infant as well as for the man; and he has testified his care, not only now, when he was gathering these lambs in his arms, but through all the preceding dispensations of his mediatorial reign. His disciples, influenced by the same mistaken feelings which led the multitude to rebuke the blind men, who cried for mercy to the son of David, rebuked the parents, who were now desirous that their infants should receive his gentle touch, and “that he should put his hands on them and pray;” “but when Jesus saw it he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God,” and “of such is the kingdom of heaven.” When heaven was more immediately his residence, he had there been accustomed to gather little children in his arms, and to introduce them to the joys and royalties of his celestial palace; and when that palace is completely furnished with guests, little children, who have died in their infancy, will constitute no small portion of the glorious number. When he first formed a church on earth, and separated the subjects of his own kingdom from others, he did so _with an express reference to the children of his people_; and he appointed the ordinance of circumcision to be administered to them at eight days old, as the token of his everlasting promise, “I will be a God unto thee, and unto thy seed after thee.” When that church was reorganized by Moses, and during the whole period of the Jewish dispensation, the same divine regard to infants is manifested, and their dedication to God, by “the token of the covenant,” is continued. When, during that dispensation, the gospel times of the church are predicted, children are always represented as sharing in the same privileges which they had been accustomed to possess; for then, says Isaiah, “the people shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the Lord, and their offspring with them.” And now in the fulness of time, when Christ himself personally appears in the world, he manifests the same regard to little children that he had shown from the beginning. When they were brought to him, “he took them up in his arms;” not indeed to baptize them, for he never baptized any one, either infant or adult; but to acknowledge their continued connection with his kingdom, and their capacity for receiving, not only an important sign, but the spiritual blessings which that sign denoted. “Of such,” says he, “is the kingdom of God,” or, as the phrase signifies, of such is _the church_ of God; and their being thus of his church, is given as the reason why they should be brought to him as the head of the church. Having thus declared that infants, under the gospel dispensation, sustained the same relation to his spiritual kingdom which Jewish infants had sustained, he proceeds to treat them accordingly. “He put his hands on them;” which was a sign, as significant as the token of circumcision or of baptism; for it was the sign of his own blessing. “He put his hands on them,” as Jacob put his hands on Ephraim and Manasseh, when he lifted up his voice to heaven and said, “the angel that redeemed me from all evil bless the lads;” or as the high priest put his hands on the people, when he blessed them in the name of the Lord; or as this great High Priest himself afterwards lifted up his hands and blessed his disciples, when he ascended from mount Olivet to heaven. True it is, that, as infants, they could not understand the meaning of this sign, any more than they could understand the meaning of circumcision or of baptism. They knew it not then, but they would know it hereafter. Yet, notwithstanding their present ignorance, he did not refrain; he put his hands upon them. And not only so, but as a manifestation of his power and grace, he accompanied the sign with the thing signified, “and he blessed them;” he baptized them, not with water, but with his own blessing; and thereby fulfilled his gracious promise, “I will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thy offspring.”
The history which our text records is therefore the consummation and the climax of a series of circumstances, which are intended to show _the interest which the children of believers have in the Saviour’s kingdom_. And as such we receive it with joy and thankfulness. There is, in the heart of every christian parent, an earnest desire that his children, as well as himself, should participate in the enjoyment of spiritual blessings; and when he receives his new-born babe into his arms, the first wish of his heart is to lay it on the arms of Christ, and to dedicate it to him for ever. So strong is this feeling, that many persons, who deny infant baptism, are so convinced of the desirableness of having some mode of dedicating their offspring to God, that they hold a special meeting for the purpose, in which the pastor of the church sets their children apart by a solemn dedicatory service. Even the ancient Greeks and Romans, guided probably by imperfect tradition, as well as by the light of nature, were accustomed, a few days after the birth of a child, to carry it to the temple, and to commend it to some patron deity. Instructed by the sacred scriptures, it is our privilege to believe that He who awakens this desire in the parental bosom, has appointed appropriate means whereby it may be expressed and gratified; and that having instituted circumcision, for such as were of the kingdom of God under the former dispensation, he has now instituted baptism for such as are of that kingdom, whether they be adults or infants. Some proof of this has already been afforded by the history to which your attention has been called; for if Christ has declared that our children now, as well as formerly, are “of the kingdom of God,” and if he gave to them the sign of his blessing, and the blessing itself, “can any one forbid water, that these should not be baptized?” But a variety of additional evidence is still presented by this holy book, our only divine and authoritative guide. The great question which we have to ask on this subject is, _What is the will of Christ_? and in seeking an answer to that inquiry, we are not to dictate to the divine Spirit the manner in which the will of Christ is to be made known to us, but we are thankfully to receive it, in the form of express command, or by any other mode of intimation that may seem good in his sight. As there is, in the New Testament, no _prohibition_ of infant baptism, we are not much concerned about a direct _injunction_ to practise it. There are some institutions belonging to former dispensations of religion, which it was not necessary should be formally re-enacted in the New Testament; because the will of Christ respecting their continuance can be gathered by evidences less direct. And as such a mode of teaching often requires thoughtful and continuous reading to ascertain the mind of God, we thereby gain a more extensive and intelligent acquaintance with the scriptures, than we could have gained if every thing had been stated as expressly and minutely as it is in the book of Leviticus. The sabbath, for instance, was instituted at the creation; it was continued during the patriarchal age; it was observed during the Jewish dispensation till the time of Christ; there is no command enjoining it in the New Testament; and though some passages seem at first sight to discountenance the observance of a christian sabbath, yet, from various remarks and circumstances, incidentally scattered through the sacred book, we are led to believe it to be the will of Christ that a sabbath should be continued through the gospel dispensation, and that it should be transferred from the last day of the week to the first; and when we consult early ecclesiastical history, we find all our convictions confirmed by the fact, that the first day of the week was universally observed by the christian church as a day of rest and worship. The ordinance of circumcision, in its connection with baptism, is similarly circumstanced. It was instituted in the time of Abraham, and it continued to be observed till the time of Christ, as a memorial of God’s everlasting covenant, and of the relationship which he had established between believing parents and their children. In the New Testament, we find that the ordinance itself is changed from circumcision to baptism; just as the sabbath is changed, from the seventh to the first day of the week. But this is the principal change relative to the ordinance which the New Testament declares. The old ordinance and the new have precisely the same spiritual signification. Faith, in an adult, was as necessary to precede circumcision, as it is now necessary to precede baptism. Infants are quite as capable of being baptized, as they were of being circumcised; and that it is the will of Christ they should be baptized, is quite as evident, from scripture testimony, as that the first day of the week is the divinely appointed christian sabbath. Indeed, their right to baptism seems to follow as a matter of course from the fact declared in our text, and already illustrated, that _our children now sustain the same relation to the kingdom of God_, _that the children of believers did formerly_; especially when we find that Christ not only said, “of such is the kingdom of God,” but also that “he put his hands on them, and blessed them.”
The evidence which the New Testament affords of _the right of infants to baptism_, is, however, abundant and various; so much so, that scarcely an outline of it can be given in the small space allotted to it in this discourse. The commission which Christ gave to his apostles, refers not only to baptism, but also to the christian instruction with which baptism is to be connected, and which it is the great design of the ordinance to secure. “Go,” says he, “and teach all nations, baptizing them unto the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” Circumcision had been confined principally to one nation, baptism is to be extended to all nations; and as the sphere of the ordinance is thus enlarged, is it at all likely that the subjects of the ordinance are to be diminished? and that children, who were admitted to the initiatory rite of the limited Jewish dispensation, are to be excluded from the initiatory rite of the universal dispensation of the gospel? If they had been excluded, would the Jews have been silent about it? Would they not have made it a subject of complaint? and would they not have referred to the exclusion of their children as an argument in favour of Judaism, and against Christianity? Undoubtedly they would; and their silence is a strong presumptive evidence that the baptismal, as well as the circumcisional commission, included infants. The word “teach,” in the former part of the passage, is not, in the original, the same word as that which is translated “teaching” in the latter part; but a word which literally signifies to disciple, or to make disciples; so that the apostles were directed to “go and make disciples,” not of Jews only, but “of all nations.” And how was this to be done? By baptizing and by teaching. “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them and teaching them.” The language of course implies that some degree of instruction must go before baptism, in the case of ignorant adults; but it is evident that _the_ “_baptizing_” _is to be introductory to the_ “_teaching_” just as circumcision was. The first persons who would be baptized, would of course be adults, as was the case when circumcision was instituted; but there is nothing, either in the nature of baptism, or in the terms of this commission, to exclude infants. If it had been written, “Go and make disciples of all nations, circumcising them, and teaching them all things,” who would have said that the language excluded infants from circumcision? and as baptism has succeeded circumcision, and as it means the same thing, why should infants be excluded by a mere change in the ordinance? especially as the ordinance of baptism seems to be more suited to an infant than circumcision was. If, nevertheless, it be maintained that no person is to be baptized until he has been taught—taught to observe all things whatsoever Christ has commanded, infants I admit will then be excluded from baptism, and so for the most part will adults be, and no persons can be baptized at all; for such “teaching” comprehends the entire gospel, and can be afforded only by long continued pastoral instruction. The conduct of the apostles in executing the commission, is, however, the best interpretation of its language; and they considered that a single sermon to the three thousand, and a single conversation with the eunuch, and a few words to the jailor, were quite sufficient to precede baptism; and it was not till after baptism, that the principles and duties of the gospel were more fully taught; nor was it till after baptism that they expected to perceive the fruits and the influences of knowledge and of faith. Instruction has therefore precisely the same relation to baptism that it had to circumcision. It follows rather than precedes. It does so, principally, in the case of adults; it does so, entirely, in the case of children. Baptism is merely an initiatory rite. It introduces the disciple into the school; and it places him there, that he may be “instructed in the way of God more perfectly,” and taught not only to understand, but also “to observe all things whatsoever Christ has commanded.”
Long before the time of John the Baptist, “divers baptisms” had been practised by the Jews. They appear to have been in the habit of baptizing, as well as of circumcising, the households which were proselyted from heathenism to Judaism. They had therefore become familiar with the ceremony, and consequently expressed no surprise that John should come among them baptizing with water. John indeed baptized unto repentance, and he refused this baptism to none by whom it was requested. The apostles baptized unto Christ; and therefore unto his death, his burial, and his resurrection—unto all that he had done and suffered as the mediator between God and man. And when they go forth to make disciples of all nations, how exactly their practice corresponds with the principles I have stated. These apostles were Jews. They rejoiced in the exceeding great and precious promise which God had made to Abraham and to them, “I will be a God unto thee, and unto thy seed after thee.” Authorised and encouraged by this promise, they had been accustomed to disciple and to dedicate their children by circumcision, which one of them calls “a yoke upon the neck of _the disciples_.” On the day of Pentecost, they began their work by declaring that the same promise that had been the hope of Jews, was now given to the Gentiles also, and to their children. They made the same distinction between the children of Christian parents and other children, that they had been accustomed to make between the children of Jews and of heathens; for they called the one class “unclean,” and the other class “holy;” “else were your children unclean, but now are they holy;” that is, externally and ceremonially holy—holy as all children are who are discipled and consecrated unto Christ. They made baptism, just what circumcision was, a domestic as well as a parental service. They baptized the family as well as the man; not as an extraordinary circumstance, but as a common practice; just as our missionaries do, who are placed in circumstances similar to those of the apostles; and who baptize not only men and women, but families also—the household of Stephanas; Lydia and her household; the jailor, and all his straightway. When they wrote epistles to the churches which they had baptized, they addressed children as well as parents, and appealed to them in the name of the Lord. And though the history of their labours extends over a period of sixty years, yet in all that time they baptized none but Jews and heathens; they never baptized any adult, who was an infant when his parents were baptized; nor is there an instance upon record, of a person who had been taught the gospel from his infancy, and whose baptism was deferred till the maturity of life.