It is a well known fact that Dr. Archibald Alexander was for forty years one of the Professors in the Theological Seminary at Princeton, New Jersey. It is not known so exclusively, however, that near the close of the last century he was President of Hampden Sidney College, Virginia; and that, during his Presidency, he was greatly troubled as to the Scriptural authority for infant baptism. As it is better for his views to be expressed in his own language, I quote from his life as follows:"I fell into doubts respecting the authority of infant baptism. The origin of these doubts was in too rigid notions as to the purity of the church, with the belief that receiving infants had a corrupting tendency. I communicated my doubts very freely to my friend Mr. Lyle, and to Mr. Speece, and found that they had both been troubled by the same. We talked much privately on the subject, and often conversed with others in hope of getting some new light. At length Mr. Lyle and I determined to give up the practice of baptizing infants, until we should receive more light. This determination we publicly communicated to our people, and left them to take such measures as they deemed expedient; but they seemed willing to await the issue. We also communicated to the Presbytery the state of our minds, and left them to do what seemed good in the case; but as they believed we were sincerely desirous of arriving at the truth, they took no steps, and I believe made no record.
"Things remained in this position for more than a year. During this time I read much on both sides, and Carried on a lengthened correspondence, particularly With Dr. Hodge. Two considerations kept me back from joining the Baptists. The first was, The universal prevalence of infant baptism, as early as the fourth and fifth centuries, was unaccountable on the supposition that no such practice existed in the times of the Apostles. The other was, that if the Baptists are right, they are the only Christian church on earth, and all other denominations are out of the visible church."
The candor evinced in the foregoing statement excites my admiration; and yet there are some things in it which astonish me, and in regard to which it could be wished that Dr. Alexander had expressed himself more fully. It would be gratifying to know by what process he was led to the conclusion that his "doubts respecting the authority of infant baptism" originated in "too rigid notions of the purity of the church." It is seldom that views "too rigid" are entertained of "the purity of the church." The churches of Christ are composed of a "peculiar people" on whose hearts regeneration has stamped the Divine image. The members of these churches are called to be saints," and it is said of them, "This is the will of God, even your sanctification. How then could Dr. A.'s opinion of the purity of the church be "too rigid?" It seems to me that it could not have been "too rigid," as compared with the teachings of Christ and his apostles. I fear these teachings were not the supreme and only standard of "church purity" to which Dr. A. appealed. He probably had in view some other standard. It may be that his opinions of the purity of the church," as compared with the lax notions of the Virginia Episcopalians of that period, were "rigid" - in the estimation of many, no doubt, "too rigid." But scriptural conceptions of the spirituality of a church of Christ preclude "too rigid" conceptions of its purity. After Dr. A. became settled in his views of the propriety of infant baptism, he persuaded himself that his previous doubts had their origin in "too rigid notions as to the purity of the church." This persuasion was unphilosophical; for when we take the New Testament as our standard and guide, it is impossible to form "too rigid notions of church purity."
It appears, too, that Dr. A's "doubts " were coupled "with a belief that receiving infants had a corrupting tendency." And the implication is that with the removal of his doubts occurred a change in his belief Now as he at one period believed infant baptism to be corrupting in its tendency, it would be highly interesting to know' in what manner, and by what means, he renounced this belief. We are not told. It is true we are referred to a "lengthened correspondence, particularly with Dr. Hodge." What Dr. Hoge [sic] said in disproof of the "corrupting tendency" of infant baptism, we know not. Of one thing we are certain: Dr. A. labored under some strange mistake when he changed his belief as to the "corrupting tendency" of infant baptism. Let us see: The Westminster Assembly of divines in l643 declared baptism "a sacrament of the New Testament whereby the parties baptized are solemnly admitted into the visible church." Calvin had, about a hundred years before, termed baptism "a solemn introduction into the church of God." This I suppose to be the view entertained by Presbyterians generally, though Dr. Miller, of Princeton, insisted that the infants of believers are in the church by virtue of their birth. If baptism is "a solemn introduction into the church of God," then, according to the Presbyterian hypothesis, infants when baptized are members of the "visible church." Their baptism makes them members. It does not, however, regenerate them. Nor is a hereditary transmission of grace from parents to children a possible thing. The "baptized children," therefore, grow up with a depraved nature; and the "original sin" in which they are involved develops itself in actual tranpgression. They become sinners by practice. They are addressed from the pulpit as sinners, justly condemned by God's holy law, and are told they must be "born again," or perish in their sins. But these "baptized children" are in the church. There is no act of excision. They are church-members, for there is no recognition of their forfeiture of the membership secured by baptism. It is true that these "baptized children" are not treated, in all respects, as church-members - they are not, for example, permitted to come to the Lord's table - but this only proves that the advocates of infant baptism involve themselves in inconsistencies.
To show the "corrupting tendency" of infant baptism I present the following syllogism:
Whatever has an inevitable tendency to secure the church membership of unregenerate persons is corrupting. Infant baptism has this inevitable tendency. Therefore infant baptism is corrupting.
If there is anything fallacious in this syllogism, let it be shown. I see in it no fallacy. The major premise must be conceded by all who consider the churches of Christ organizations distinguished for spirituality and purity. The membership of unregenerate persons impairs this spirituality and pollutes this purity. This cannot be denied. Now for the minor premise: it must command the acquiescence of all who deny the regenerating efficacy of baptism. Presbyterians must, therefore, admit its truth. If, according to their teaching, baptism is a solemn admission into the visible church - but confers no regenerating grace - then its application to infants secures, of necessity, the church membership of unregenerate persons. If, therefore, the membership of unregenerate persons, contaminates the purity of a church, infant baptism has a "corrupting tendency." This conclusion cannot be avoided. It is as irresistible as the sternness of logical necessity can make it.
It might be shown that infant baptism is not only corrupting in its influence, but that its obvious tendency is to abolish the distinction everywhere recognized in the word of God between the church and the world. Let it universally prevail, and there would be, to say the least, an intensely worldly church, corrupt in the ratio of its worldliness. This is so plain that anything like an elaborate development of the idea is uncalled for. I submit that Dr. Alexander's change of belief respecting the "corrupting tendency of infant baptism" was perfectly gratuitous. His belief accorded with the facts, in the case while he recognized the corrupting tendency of infant baptism - it was at war with the facts when he denied that tendency.
============ [From The Baptist newspaper, March 14, 1868. Scanned and formatted by Jim Duvall.]
More on J. M. Pendleton
Baptist History Homepage