Most men indeed, I fear, neither pray at fixed times, nor do they
cultivate an habitual communion with Almighty God. Indeed, it is too
plain how most men pray. They pray now and then, when they feel
particular need of God's assistance; when they are in trouble or in
apprehension of danger; or when their feelings are unusually excited.
They do not know what it is either to be habitually religious, or to
devote a certain number of minutes at fixed times to the thought of
God. Nay, the very best Christian, how lamentably deficient is he in
the spirit of prayer! Let any man compare in his mind how many times
he has prayed when in trouble, with how seldom he has returned thanks
when his prayers have been granted; or the earnestness with which he
prays against expected suffering, with the languor and unconcern of his
thanksgivings afterwards, and he will soon see how little he has of the
real habit of prayer, and how much his religion depends on accidental
excitement, which is no test of a religious heart. Or supposing he has
to repeat the same prayer for a month or two, the cause of using it
continuing, let him compare the earnestness with which he first said
it, and tried to enter into it, with the coldness with which he at
length uses it. Why is this, except that his perception of the unseen
world is not the true view which faith gives (else it would last as
that world itself lasts), but a mere dream, which endures for a night,
and is succeeded by a hard worldly joy in the morning? Is God
habitually in our thoughts? Do we think of Him, and of His Son our
Saviour, through the day? When we eat and drink, do we thank Him, not
as a mere matter of form, but in spirit? When we do things in
themselves right, do we lift up our minds to Him, and desire to promote
His glory? When we are in the exercise of our callings, do we still
think of Him, acting ever conscientiously, desiring to know His will
more exactly than we do at present, and aiming at fulfilling it more
completely and abundantly? Do we wait on His grace to enlighten,
renew, strengthen us?
I do not ask whether we use many words about religion. There is no
need to do this: nay, we should avoid a boastful display of our better
feelings and practices, silently serving God without human praise, and
hiding our conscientiousness except when it would dishonour God to do
so. There are times, indeed, when, in the presence of a holy man, to
confess is a benefit, and there are times when, in the presence of
worldly men, to confess becomes a duty; but these seasons, whether of
privilege or of duty, are comparatively rare. But we are always with
ourselves and our God; and that silent inward confession in His
presence may be sustained and continual, and will end in durable fruit.
But if those persons come short of their duty who make religion a
matter of impulse and mere feeling, what shall be said to those who
have no feeling or thought of religion at all? What shall be said of
the multitude of young people who ridicule seriousness, and
deliberately give themselves up to vain thoughts? Alas! my brethren,
you do not even observe or recognize the foolish empty thoughts which
pass through your minds; you are not distressed, even at those of them
you recollect; but what will you say at the last day, when, instead of
the true and holy visions in which consists Divine communion, you find
recorded against you in God's book an innumerable multitude of the
idlest, silliest imaginings, nay, of the wickedest, which ever
disgraced an immortal being? What will you say, when heaven and hell
are before you, and the books are opened, and therein you find the sum
total of your youthful desires and dreams, your passionate wishes for
things of this world, your low-minded, grovelling tastes, your secret
contempt and aversion for serious subjects and persons, your efforts to
attract the looks of sinners and to please those who displease God;
your hankerings after worldly gaieties and luxuries, your admiration of
the rich or titled, your indulgence of impure thoughts, your
self-conceit and pitiful vanity? Ah, I may seem to you to use harsh
words; but be sure I do not use terms near so severe as you will use
against yourselves in that day. Then those men, whom you now think
gloomy and over-strict, will seem to you truly wise; and the advice to
pray without ceasing, which once you laughed at as fit only for the
dull, the formal, the sour, the poor-spirited, or the aged, will be
approved by your own experience, as it is even now by your reason and
conscience. Oh, that you could be brought to give one serious hour to
religion, in anticipation of that long eternity where you _must_ be
serious! True, you may laugh now, but there is no vain merriment on
the other side of the grave. The devils, though they repent not,
tremble. _You_ will be among those unwilling serious ones then, if you
are mad enough to be gay and careless now; if you are mad enough to
laugh, jest, and scoff your poor moment now on earth, which, is short
enough to prepare for eternity in, without your making it shorter by
wasting your youth in sin. Could you but see who it is that suggests
to you all your lighter thoughts, which you put instead of Divine
communion, the shock would make you serious, even if it did not make
you religious. Could you see, what God sees, those snares and pitfalls
which the devil is placing about your path; could you see that all your
idle thoughts which you cherish, which seem so bright and pleasant, so
much pleasanter than religious thoughts, are inspired by that Ancient
Seducer of Mankind, the Author of Evil, who stands at your side while
you deride religion, serious indeed himself while he makes you laugh,
not able to laugh at his own jests, while he carries you dancing
forward to perdition,--doubtless you would tremble, even as he does
while he tempts you. But this you cannot possibly see, you cannot
break your delusion, except by first taking God's word in this matter
on trust. You cannot see the unseen world at once. They who ever
speak with God in their hearts, are in turn taught by Him in all
knowledge; but they who refuse to act upon the light, which God gave
them by nature, at length come to lose it altogether, and are given up
to a reprobate mind.
May God save us all from such wilful sin, old as well as young, and
enlighten us one and all in His saving knowledge, and give us the will
and the power to serve Him!
[1] 1 Cor. x. 31.
[2] Eph. ii. 5, 6.
[3] Col. iii. 3.
[4] Gal. ii. 20.
[5] Eph. vi. 18. Phil. iv. 6.
[6] Col. iv. 2. Rom. xii. 12.
[7] 2 Tim. i. 12.
SERMON XVI.
Infant Baptism.
"_Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into
the Kingdom of God._"--John iii. 5.
None can be saved, unless the blood of Christ, the Immaculate Lamb of
God, be imputed to him; and it is His gracious will that it should be
imputed to as, one by one, by means of outward and visible signs, or
what are called Sacraments. These visible rites represent to us the
heavenly truth, and convey what they represent. The baptismal washing
betokens the cleansing of the soul from sin; the elements of bread and
wine are figures of what is present but not seen, "the body and blood
of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken and received by the
faithful in the Lord's Supper." So far the two Sacraments agree; yet
there is this important difference in their use,--that Baptism is but
_once_ administered, but the Lord's Supper is to be received
_continually_. Our Lord Christ told the Apostles to baptize _at the
time_ that they made men His disciples. Baptism _admitted_ them to His
favour once for all; but the Lord's Supper _keeps_ us and secures us in
His favour day by day. He said, "This do, _as often as_ ye drink it,
in _remembrance_ of Me."
Here, then, a Question at once arises, which it is important to
consider:--_At what time_ in our life are we to be baptized, or made
disciples of Christ? The first Christians of course were baptized when
they were come to a full age, because then the Gospel was for the first
time preached to them; they had no means of being baptized when young.
But the case is different with those who are born of Christian parents;
so the question now is, at what age are the sons of Christians to be
baptized?
Now, for fifteen hundred years there was no dispute or difficulty in
answering this question all over the Christian world; none who
acknowledged the duty of baptizing at all, but administered the rite to
infants, as we do at present. But about three hundred years ago
strange opinions were set afloat, and sects arose, doing every thing
which had not been done before, and undoing every thing that had been
done before, and all this (as they professed) on the principle that it
was every one's duty to judge and act for himself; and among these new
sects there was one which maintained that Infant Baptism was a mistake,
and that, mainly upon this short argument,--that it was nowhere
commanded in Scripture.
Let us, then, consider this subject: and first, it is but fair and
right to acknowledge at once that Scripture does _not_ bid us baptize
children. This, however, is no very serious admission; for Scripture
does not name any time at all for Baptism; yet it orders us to be
baptized at some age or other. It is plain, then, whatever age we fix
upon, we shall be going beyond the letter of Scripture. This may or
may not be a difficulty, but it cannot be avoided: it is not a
difficulty of _our_ making. God has so willed it. He has kept
silence, and doubtless with good reason; and surely we must try to do
our part and to find out what He would have us do, according to the
light, be it greater or less, which He has vouchsafed to us.
Is it any new thing that it should take time and thought to find out
accurately what our duty is? Is it a new thing that the full and
perfect truth should not lie on the very surface of things, in the bare
letter of Scripture? Far from it. Those who _strive_ to enter into
life, these alone find the strait gate which leads thereto. It is no
proof even that it is a matter of indifference what age is proper for
Baptism, that Scripture is not clear about it, but hides its real
meaning; not commanding but hinting what we should do. For consider
how many things in this life are difficult to attain, yet, far from
being matters of indifference, are necessary for our comfort or even
well-being. Nay, it often happens that the more valuable any gift is,
the more difficult it is to gain it. Take, for instance, the art of
medicine. Is there an art more important for our life and comfort?
Yet how difficult and uncertain is the science of it! what time it
takes to be well versed and practised in it! What would be thought of
a person who considered that it mattered little whether a sick man took
this course or that, on the ground that men were not physicians by
nature, and that if the Creator had meant medicine to be for our good.
He would have told us at once, and every one of us, the science and the
practice of it? In the same way it does not at all follow, even if it
_were_ difficult to find out at what age Baptism should be
administered, that therefore one time is as good as another.
Difficulty is the very attendant upon great blessings, not on things
indifferent.
But a man may say that Scripture is given us for the very purpose of
making the knowledge of our duty easy to us;--what is meant by a
revelation, if it does not reveal?--and that we have no revelation to
tell us what medicines are good or bad for the body, but that a
revelation _has_ been made in order to tell us what is good or bad for
the soul:--if, then, a thing _were_ important for our soul's benefit,
Scripture would have plainly declared it. I answer, who told us all
this? Doubtless, Scripture _was_ given to make our duty _easier than
before_; but how do we know that it was intended to take away _all_
difficulty of every kind? So says not Christ, when He bids us seek and
strive and so find; to knock, to watch, and to pray. No; Scripture has
not undertaken to _tell_ us every thing, but merely to give us the
means of _finding_ every thing; and thus much we can conclude on the
subject before us, that if it is important, there are _means_ of
determining it; but we cannot infer, either that it must actually be
_commanded_ in the letter of Scripture, or that it can be found out by
every individual _for and by himself_.
But it may be said, Scripture says that the times of the Gospel shall
be times of great light: "All thy children shall be taught of the Lord,
and great shall be the peace of thy children[1]." This is true: but
whose children? The Church's. Surely it is a time of light, if we
come to the Church for information; for she has ever spoken most
clearly on the subject. She has ever baptized infants and enjoined the
practice; she has ever answered to the prophecy as being "a word behind
us, saying, This is the way; walk ye in it." Her teachers surely
(according to the prophecy) have never been removed into a corner. But
if we will not accept this supernatural mercy, then I say it is not
unnatural that we should find ourselves in the same kind of doubt in
which we commonly are involved in matters of this world. God has
promised us light and knowledge in the Gospel, but in His way, not in
_our_ way.
But after all, in the present instance, surely there is no great
difficulty in finding out what God would have us to do, though He has
not told us in Scripture in the plainest way. I say it is not
difficult to see, as the Church has ever been led to see, that God
would have us baptize young children, and that to delay Baptism is to
delay a great benefit, and is hazarding a child's salvation. There is
no difficulty, if men are not resolved to make one.
1. Let us consider, first, what is Baptism? It is a means and pledge
of God's mercy, pardon, acceptance of us for Christ's sake; it gives us
grace to change our natures. Now, surely infants, as being born in
sin, have most abundant _need_ of God's mercy and grace: this cannot be
doubted. Even at first sight, then, it appears _desirable_ (to say the
least) that they should be baptized. Baptism is just suited to their
need: it contains a promise of the very blessings which they want, and
which without God's free bounty they cannot have. If, indeed, Baptism
were merely or principally our act, then perhaps the case would be
altered. But it is not an act of ours so much as of God's; a pledge
from Him. And, I repeat, infants, as being by nature under God's
wrath, having no elements of spiritual life in them, being corrupt and
sinful, are surely, in a singular manner, objects of Baptism as far as
the question of desirableness is concerned.
Let us refer to our Saviour's words to Nicodemus in the text. Our Lord
tells him none can enter into the kingdom of God who is not born of
water and the Spirit. And why? _Because_ (He goes on to say) "that
which is born of the flesh is flesh[2]." We need a new birth, because
our first birth is a birth unto sin. Who does not see that this reason
is equally cogent for _infant_ Baptism as for Baptism at all? Baptism
by water and the Spirit is necessary for salvation (He says), because
man's _nature_ is corrupt; therefore infants must need this
regeneration too. If, indeed, sin were not planted deep in man's very
heart,--if it were merely an accidental evil into which some fell while
others escaped it.--nay, even if, though (as a fact) all men actually
fall into sin, yet this general depravity arose merely from bad
example, not from natural bias, then indeed Baptism of water and the
Spirit would not be necessary except for those who, having come to
years of understanding, had actual sin to answer for: but if, as our
Saviour implies, even a child's heart, before he begins to think and
act, is under Divine wrath, and contains the sure and miserable promise
of future sin as the child grows up, can we do otherwise than
thankfully accept the pledge and means which He has given us of a new
birth unto holiness; and since, by not telling us the time for Baptism,
He has in a way left it to ourselves to decide upon it, shall we not
apply the medicine given us when we are sure of the disease? "Can any
man _forbid_ water," to use St. Peter's words under different
circumstances, "that" children "should not be baptized?" The burden of
proof, as it is called, is with those who withhold the Sacrament.
Will it be said that infants are not properly _qualified_ for Baptism?
How is this an objection? Consider the text.--"Except one be born of
water and the Spirit," says our Lord, "he cannot enter into the kingdom
of God." There is nothing said about qualifications or conditions here
which might exclude infants from Baptism,--nothing about the necessity
of previous faith, or previous good works, in order to fit us for the
mercy of God. Nor indeed could any thing be said. Christ knew that,
without His grace, man's nature could not bear any good fruit, for from
above is every good gift. Far from it. Any such notion of man's
unassisted strength is wholly detestable, contrary to the very first
principles of all true religion, whether Jewish, Christian, or even
Pagan. We are miserably fallen creatures, we are by nature
corrupt,--we dare not talk even of children being naturally pleasing in
God's sight. And if we wait till children are in a condition to bring
something to God, in payment (so to say) of His mercy to them, till
they have faith and repentance, they never will be baptized; for they
will never attain to that condition. To defer Baptism till persons
actually have repentance and faith, is refusing to give medicine till a
patient begins to get well. It would be hard indeed, if Satan be
allowed to have access to the soul from infancy, as soon as it begins
to think, and we refuse to do what we can, or what promises well,
towards gaining for it the protection of God against the Tempter.
On this first view of the case then, from the original corruption of
our nature, from the need which all men are under from their birth of
pardon and help from God, from Baptism being a promise of mercy just
suited to our need, and from the impossibility of any one (let him be
allowed to live unbaptized ever so long) bringing any self-provided
recommendation of himself to God's favour; on all these accounts, I
say, since God has given us no particular directions in the matter, but
has left it to ourselves, it seems, on the first view of the case, most
fitting and right to give children the privilege of Baptism.
2. But, in fact, we are not, strictly speaking, left without positive
encouragement to bring infants near to Him. We are not merely left to
infer generally the propriety of Infant Baptism; Christ has shown us
His _willingness_ to receive children. Some men have said (indeed most
of us perhaps in seasons of unbelief have been tempted in our hearts to
ask), "What good can Baptism do senseless children? you might as well
baptize things without life; they sleep or even struggle during the
ceremony, and interrupt it; it is a mere superstition." This, my
brethren, is the language of the world, whoever uses it. It is putting
sight against faith. If we are assured that Baptism has been blessed
by Christ, as the rite of admittance into His Church, we have nothing
to do with those outward appearances, which, though they might prove
something perhaps, had He not spoken, now that He has spoken lose all
force. To such objections, I would reply by citing our Saviour's "own
word and deed." We find that infants were brought to Christ; and His
disciples seem to have doubted, in the same spirit of unbelief, what
_could_ be the good of bringing helpless and senseless children to the
Saviour of men. They doubtless thought that His time would be better
employed in teaching _them_, than in attending to children; that it was
interfering with His usefulness. "But when Jesus saw it, He was much
displeased[3]." These are remarkable words: "much displeased,"--that
is, He was uneasy, indignant, angry (as the Greek word may be more
literally translated); and we are told, "He took them up in His arms,
put His hands upon them, and _blessed them_." Christ, then, can bless
infants, in spite of their being to all appearance as yet incapable of
thought or feeling. He can, and did, bless them; and, in the very
sense in which they then were blessed, we believe they are capable of a
blessing in Baptism.
3. And we may add this consideration. It is certain that children
ought to be instructed in religious truth, as they can bear it, from
the very first dawn of reason; clearly, they are not to be left without
a Christian training till they arrive at years of maturity. Now, let
it be observed, Christ seems distinctly to connect teaching with
Baptism, as if He intended to convey through it a blessing upon
teaching,--"Go ye and teach all the nations, baptizing them." If
children, then, are to be considered as under teaching, as learners in
the school of Christ, surely they should be admitted into that school
by Baptism.
These are the reasons for Infant Baptism which strike the mind, even on
the first consideration of the subject; and in the absence of express
information from Scripture, they are (as far as they go) satisfactory.
At _what age_ should we be baptized? I answer, in childhood; because
all children _require_ Divine pardon and grace (as our Saviour Himself
implies), all are _capable_ of His blessing (as His action shows), all
are _invited_ to His blessing, and Baptism is a pledge from Him of His
favour, as His Apostles frequently declare. Since infants are to be
brought to Christ, we must have invented a rite, if Baptism did not
answer the purpose of a dedication. Again, I say, in childhood;
because all children need Christian instruction, and Baptism is a badge
and mark of a scholar in Christ's school. And moreover, I will add,
because St. Paul speaks of the children of Christian parents as being
"holy," in a favoured state, a state of unmerited blessing; and because
he seems to have baptized at once whole families, where the head of the
family was converted to the faith of the Gospel[4].
To conclude. Let me beg of all who hear me, and who wish to serve God,
to remember, in their ordinary prayers, their habitual thoughts, the
daily business of life, that they were once baptized. If Baptism be
merely a ceremony, to be observed indeed, but then at once
forgotten,--a decent form, which it would neither be creditable, nor
for temporal reasons expedient to neglect,--it is most surely no
subject for a Christian minister to speak of; Christ's religion has no
fellowship with bare forms, and nowhere encourages mere outward
observances. If, indeed, there be any who degrade Baptism into a mere
ceremony, which has in it no spiritual promise, let such men look to it
for themselves, and defend their practice of baptizing infants as they
can. But for me, my brethren, I would put it before you as a true and
plain pledge, without reserve, of God's grace given to the souls of
those who receive it; not a mere form, but a real means and instrument
of blessing verily and indeed received; and, as being such, I warn you
to remember what a talent has been committed to you. There are very
many persons who do not think of Baptism in this religious point of
view; who are in no sense in the habit of blessing God for it, and
praying Him for His further grace to profit by the privileges given
them in it; who, when even they pray for grace, do not ground their
hope of being heard and answered, on the promise of blessing in Baptism
made to them; above all, who do not fear to sin after Baptism. This is
of course an omission; in many cases it is a _sin_. Let us set
ourselves right in this respect. Nothing will remind us more forcibly
both of our advantages and of our duties; for from the very nature of
our minds outward signs are especially calculated (if rightly used) to
strike, to affect, to subdue, to change them.