Dr. Van Dyke on Baptism.
By Editor
SOME time since, Dr. Van Dyke wrote an article on baptism, specially on the baptism of infants, which was published in the Presbyterian Review. We did not have the reading of the article, but we laid aside the comments upon it by the Christian at Work, which interest us fully as much as the article itself could. This paper is highly pleased with the Doctor's conclusions, fully believing in infant baptism; and it admires the Doctor's effort in its behalf, and yet is greatly perplexed over his methods. We do not wonder at this; for the Christian at Work aims to be a fair and candid paper, and it is greatly perplexed over many points in the current theology of the day. It says:— "Dr. Van Dyke's positions may be epitomized in brief as follows: 1. He sympathizes not a particle with that Protestantism which cuts itself loose from Christianity." This seems the strangest of all strange declarations. We heartily agree with him in this respect, only we go a little further, and say that that is not Protestantism which cuts itself loose from Christianity. It is infidelity, no matter what name it takes or bears among men. But the paper might have gone further, and said that Dr. Van Dyke does not sympathize with Protestantism at all; for in this article it is said: "The mission of Protestantism is ended, and, of course, there is no longer any use for the term Protestant." We are happy to say that the Christian at Work does not indorse this statement, though it does not heartily repudiate the conclusions which legitimately follow from the statement. We do not call that Protestantism which praises and fawns before the Catholic Church. If the Catholic Church is indeed the true church of Christ, as was stated and vigorously argued some time since in a representative meeting of Presbyterians, when considering the subject of Catholic baptisms, then not only is the mission of Protestantism ended, but it never had a mission; it had not, and has not, a right to exist; then Protestantism is a "schism," just as the Catholics affirm it to be. The only justification which can be found for the existence and work of Protestantism is the declaration of the reformers that the Catholic Church is the great apostasy and antichrist; that it has so far perverted the gospel, and so far amalgamated the Christian system with pagan rites, that its faith and practice are not Christian, but a great system of false worship and worldliness. But the paper places a most singular construction upon the idea of adherence to Christianity. Immediately following the sentence which we quoted, is this: "In his view—and not in his alone—the traditions of the church in all ages are entitled to the deepest respect, and 'ought never to be rejected except under compulsion of loyalty to the Scriptures as the supreme rule of faith and practice.'" And thus we have it distinctly enunciated that to cut loose from Christianity is to reject the traditions of the church! Only with this reservation that they may be rejected wherein they are specifically disallowed by Scripture statement. But this is the stronghold of error, and opens the door to unnumbered false doctrines and practices. We think the following is the truth on the subject: The traditions of the church are entitled to no respect whatever, as far as faith and duty are concerned; the Scriptures, and the Scriptures alone, being the complete standard of Christianity. This is in perfect harmony with the statement of Paul, that the holy Scriptures are profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Tim. 3: 16, 17. That unto which the holy Scriptures do not thoroughly furnish us is not a good work. There is scarcely an error of the church of Rome which may not be admitted under the Doctor's rule, which is indorsed by the Christian at Work. But if the rule be disallowed, then sprinkling for baptism, infant baptism, the Sunday sabbath, and like errors, must necessarily be rejected. They all come in under the rule of paying the deepest respect to the traditions of the church.263 His second position is as follows:— "2. From the days of the apostles to the time of the Reformation and to the rise of the Baptist denomination in England, 'there is not in all Christian history or literature a line or a word of objection to the baptism of infants, upon grounds with which evangelical Christians in our day can have a particle of sympathy.'" This statement is not wholly true, but both in substance and method it is wholly deceptive. But we do not accuse the author of any intention to deceive, by any means. From his standpoint, according to the faith of his church, he stands justified. We can prove that the meaning of the original word, baptize, is immerse; that the ordinance is by a precept which calls for obedience, which excludes infants; that it is to be preceded by repentance and faith; that every Scripture example of baptism is in accordance with these facts. But this is not the kind of evidence for which the Doctor's proposition calls. He asks for history or literature this side of the Scripture record which objects to infant baptism. Now we can show that the earliest advocates of infant baptism ascribed it to tradition; that it was administered under the erroneous belief that no unbaptized infant could be saved; that because of the marvelous benefits which were ascribed to it, many unbelievers brought their children, and especially their sick children, to be baptized; and that infant communion was practiced with it, and is continued to this day in the Greek Church. Besides this, they who rejected the traditions of the church were denounced as heretics, and to preserve the writings of heretics was made a crime to be visited with the severest punishments. As an example we may state that Arius was a very popular man, having many eminent men as his followers; but an edict was finally promulgated requiring every one who had any of his writings to destroy them or to bring them to the authorities, and a failure to do this was punishable with death. Consequently all that we know of Arius is through his bitter enemies. Shall we go to such times and to such sources for Christian doctrine? But, of course, that class of "evangelical Christians" who hold that "the traditions of the church in all ages are entitled to the deepest respect," have not "a particle of sympathy" with such evidences as we present. Their position is wide as the world from ours. We hold that "The Bible, and the Bible alone, is the religion of Protestants." The Doctor holds that "the mission of Protestantism is ended," and tradition is to be deeply respected. The two positions cannot be reconciled. They must forever remain apart. But we are satisfied to differ with him, because we are Protestants, and have full faith in the mission of Protestantism. The third statement of his faith, embracing the fourth also, is one of great interest; it is as follows:— "3. The argument against infant baptism from the silence of Scripture is rejected as proving too much: 'There are many things about which the Bible says nothing, which all Christians believe and insist upon.' As for example, 4. All Christians agree that the Lord's Supper is for all believers; 'but where is there a single passage of Scripture which says that women are to be admitted to the Lord's table?'" Against this we present a two-fold argument: (1) The very terms in which baptism is required or commanded exclude infants from the rite. It is an ordinance of precept, which infants cannot obey. It is in the Scriptures always preceded by faith and repentance, which renders it doubly impossible for infants to meet its requirements. If objections of this nature could be presented against females partaking of the Lord's Supper, we would yield that question at once. But they cannot; the cases are not parallel. But, (2) The Scriptures do present a fact, which is itself a rule whereby females are admitted to the Lord's table. It is found in Gal. 3: 26-29. "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Here are a series of important points: They who are children of God by faith in Christ, put on Christ in baptism, and are thereby constituted the seed and heirs of Abraham. And among them the distinctions of male and female, and Jew and Greek, or Gentile, are unknown; they are all members of the household of faith, or the body of Christ. They being alike members of the church of Christ, they alike have the privileges of the membership of that church. This is undeniable. The first partakers of the Lord's Supper, and all the partakers for several years, were Jews. But this text from Paul to the Galatians proves that they are all one, members of one household; and we insist that there is as good proof of the right of females to come to the Lord's Supper, as there is that Gentile converts have that right. And in both cases the proof is complete. Here again we say that if the Doctor can find a parallel to this argument in favor of infant baptism, we would yield the question. But it cannot be found. The point marked 5 needs but few words of comment:— "5. Most Christians believe that infants dying in infancy are saved through Christ, though incapable of exercising and confessing faith in Christ, which is the only expressed condition of salvation. 'But where is the text which says so in so many words?'" We turn to Jer. 31: 15-17, and compare this with Matt. 2: 17, 18, and we learn that children, little children, will certainly be raised from the dead. See also 1 Cor. 15: 22-26. They inherited mortality from Adam, and die on that account, and not because of any sin committed by them. Their fall and death were not by their forfeiture, and they will also be raised without any condition. They are resurrected by the Saviour, by the power of his blood which purchased them. But, never having committed any sin, they cannot be condemned, but necessarily enjoy eternal life by virtue of the resurrection. They, too, will be the redeemed of the blood of the Lamb. But this salvation, so plainly taught in the Scriptures, is not discerned by modern theologians, because they lay no stress on the doctrine of the resurrection. Here again the Doctor is lame in his argument. There remains to be noticed his most material point, the one upon which he most relies, the identity of the church in both Testaments, and of circumcision with baptism. But here he is necessarily the weakest, as may easily be shown.