Inconsistent: Baptism and the Divided House
By F. A. B.
“AND if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.” Mark 3:25. In reading a sermon written by Timothy Dwight, S. T. D., LL. D., we find the following: “In the preceding discourse, I considered, at some length, the reality and intention of the ordinance of baptism. According to the scheme then proposed, I shall now proceed to inquire, Who are the proper subjects of baptism? In answer to this inquiry, I observe, “1. That all those who believe in Christ and publicly profess their faith in him, are proper subjects of baptism. That such a profession may be made with understanding, the person who makes it must be of sufficient age and sufficient capacity to know the great doctrines and duties of the gospel; and must already have become acquainted with them. He must also understand that it is the religion of the heart which is professed, and not merely a speculative belief of the truths and precepts contained in the Scriptures. Without such knowledge, no man can act, in this solemn case, with propriety, decency, or meaning. Nor do I know that the absolute necessity of such knowledge has ever been questioned. “A public declaration of our cordial belief in the doctrines and precepts of the gospel is what is usually called in this country a ‘profession of faith;’ the ground on which, indispensably, adults are admitted to baptism. “In addition to this, what is equally necessary to such admission, the candidate also enters publicly into covenant with God; avouching Jehovah, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, to be his God; giving himself up to the Father, through the Son, and by the Holy Ghost, as his child and servant; and engaging, that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, he will live soberly, righteously, and godly, in the world. . . One would think it hardly necessary to observe concerning this engagement, that it ought to be made with sincerity; or that the candidate ought to mean all that which is ordinarily intended by the terms of profession; or, in other words, that it ought to be made with the heart and not merely with the lips.” Is there anything strange in the foregoing? No, nothing there but what seems perfectly consistent and in harmony with the law and gospel. Why, then, place it before the public again, since it is presumed that all Bible believers deem baptism essential, as a step toward the kingdom? We place it here as an exhibition of the ability of learned men as well as unlearned, to produce, in the same breath, or on the same page, arguments both pro and con. With all these foregoing statements of a learned man, does it not seem that they should be without a negative, especially from their own author? What are the facts? Simply that after stating in such plain language, the obligations resting upon the candidate for the solemn ordinance of baptism, the next sentence we find to be a statement; viz., “2. The infant children of believers are also scriptural subjects of baptism”!! Comment seems unnecessary here.