Chapter III: Infant Baptism

Another point in which the Church of Christ and the Jewish Covenant are at exact opposites is that of infant membership. In the Apostolic Church baptism preceded membership, and faith was prerequisite to baptism, consequently there was not, neither could be any place for infant membership. On this account we have in the New Testament neither precept for, nor example of, infant baptism, but on the contrary, much that renders it totally incompatible with apostolic teaching.

But we are reminded by the advocates of infant baptism that in some sense baptism stands to its subject and the Church as circumcision did under the Abrahamic covenant. They emphasize that as an unquestioned fact, and seem to think there ought to be something in it, somewhere or somehow, in favor of infant baptism. Some claim that circumcision initiated into the Church under the former dispensation, and that baptism is initiative now; and that infants were formerly initiated by circumcision, and should now be initiated by baptism. Others hold that circumcision was a declaration of church membership under the Jewish dispensation; and that baptism is a declaration of membership now: and that as circumcision was extended to infants, so baptism should be extended. They further claim that infants were put in the Church which was established in the family of Abraham; that the Church of the old dispensation is identical with that of the new; that no law has since been enacted to put them out; and that they were then initiated by circumcision and that, as baptism has superseded circumcision, infants should now be initiated by baptism.

To some this is a strong and satisfactory argument, but a few plain, simple facts should decide the question whether the Church of the new covenant is identical with that of the old and that baptism takes the place of circumcision:

(1) "The covenant of circumcision" (Acts 7:8) was a covenant with
Abraham and to him "that is born in thy house, and he that is bought
with thy money" (Gen. 17:12, 13); while the new covenant embraces
believers in Jesus Christ, without respect to Abraham's flesh or
money. (See II Cor. 5:16, 17; Gal. 3:26-29; Heb. 8:8-12.)

(2) Male children alone were subjects of circumcision. If baptism took
the place of circumcision, none but the males should be baptized; but
the advocates of infant baptism contend that infants should be
baptized regardless of sex, flesh or money.

(3) If baptism came in the place of circumcision, persons already
circumcised could not be baptized. If the one came in the place of the
other, the two could not exist at the same time in the same person.
But all the Jews that had been circumcised on believing in Christ were
baptized. The children of Jewish Christians were still circumcised. Is
it possible that pedobaptists are so blinded in their contention for
infant baptism that they can not see this?

That there is a point of similarity between circumcision and baptism there is no doubt, for Paul says: "In whom ye were also circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, in the putting off the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him through the faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead" (Col. 2:11, 12). In circumcision the foreskin of the flesh was cut off by the hands; so in baptism the sins were put off, and this putting off the sins was called "a circumcision not made with hands."

The Mosaic law given to the fleshly family of Abraham typified to some extent the spiritual family of God. Circumcision marked those born of the flesh as members of the kingdom of Israel; baptism marks those begotten of the Spirit as members of God's spiritual kingdom. To affix the spiritual mark to the fleshly birth is to do violence to the figure and to introduce those born of the flesh into the spiritual kingdom. Now faith is the first manifestation of the spiritual begetting, and only those begotten of the Spirit and manifesting it in faith can be introduced into the spiritual kingdom, or should have the mark of God's spiritual child. To place the mark of the birth of the Spirit upon one born of the flesh is to mislead and deceive that child and make the impression that it is one of God's spiritual children when it is not. The Spirit of God always connects the fleshly mark with the fleshly birth into the fleshly kingdom, and the spiritual mark (baptism) with the spiritual birth into the spiritual kingdom. Hence the Holy Spirit says: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19). "Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to the whole creation. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned" (Mark 16:15, 16). "Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins" (Acts 2:38). "And now why tarriest thou, arise, and be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord" (Acts 22:16). Only those capable of believing, repenting and of thus showing that they are begotten of the Spirit, are fit subjects for baptism. To bestow the mark of the spiritual birth on those born of the flesh is to break down and carnalize the kingdom of God.

The prophet says:

Behold, the days come, saith Jehovah, that I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: not according
to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took
them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt: which my
covenant they brake, although I was a husband unto them, saith
Jehovah. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of
Israel after those days, saith Jehovah: I will put my law in their
inward parts, and in their hearts will I write it; and I will be their
God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every
man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know Jehovah: for
they shall all know me from the least of them unto the greatest of
them, saith Jehovah: for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sins
will I remember no more. (Jer. 31:31-34.)

This shows that a new covenant different from that he made at Sinai would be made. That was a fleshly covenant with the house of Israel, into which they were born by a fleshly birth; but in the new covenant the law was to be written on their hearts, and all were to know him, from the least to the greatest. That is, all must know the law of God, accept it in their hearts before they could become members of the Church of God. So Paul asks: "What then is the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise hath been made" (Gal. 3:19). The seed that was to come was Christ, and this plainly shows that because of the transgression this law was to continue only until Christ should come. Then the new spiritual covenant was to go into force, and the members of it were all to believe in Christ.

The following significant contrast is drawn by the Apostle Paul: "Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men; being made manifest that ye are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not on tables of stone, but in tables that are hearts of flesh. And such confidence have we through Christ to Godward: not that we are sufficient of ourselves, to account anything as from ourselves; but our sufficiency is from God, who also made us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. But if the ministration of death, written and engraven on stones, came with glory, so that the children of Israel could not look steadfastly upon the face of Moses for the glory of his face; which glory was passing away: how shall not rather the ministration of the spirit be with glory? For if the ministration of condemnation hath glory, much rather doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. For verily that which hath been made glorious hath not been made glorious in this respect, by reason of the glory that surpasseth. For if that which passeth away was with glory, much more that which remaineth is in glory" (II Cor. 3:2-11). In this the Ten Commandments, written upon the tables of stone, is contrasted with the law of Christ, written in the hearts of God's children. The law written on stones is called "the letter" that "killeth." It convicted of sin, but had no power to deliver from it. The sins were rolled and rolled year by year until Jesus came and shed blood, not only for our sins but for "the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant that they that have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance."

The letter to the Hebrews was written to show the change from the old covenant to the new, and to show the immense superiority of the new to the old. To turn back from the spiritual law and the Church of Christ to the fleshly law and institution of Judaism is called falling "away from grace." "Ye are severed from Christ, ye who would be justified by the law; ye are fallen away from grace" (Gal. 5:4).

Since it is so very evident that there is no ground whatever for infant baptism based on the arguments on the analogy of circumcision and the identity of the covenants it is quite appropriate to close this article with quotations from two great pedobaptist scholars. Dr. Jacob Ditzler, claimed to be the best debater the Methodist Church has produced, says:

I here express my conviction that the covenants of the Old Testament
have nothing to do with infant baptism. (Graves-Ditzler Debate, page
694).

Moses Stuart, Congregationalist, Professor of Sacred Literature in Andover Theological Seminary, called "The Father of Biblical Literature in America," says:

How unwary, too, are many excellent men, in contending for infant
baptism on the ground of the Jewish analogy of circumcision! Are
females not proper subjects of baptism? And again, are a man's slaves
to be all baptized because he is? Are they church members of course
when they are so baptized? Is there no difference between ingrafting
into a politico-ecclesiastical community, and into one of which it is
said that "it is not of this world?" In short, numberless difficulties
present themselves in our way, as soon as we begin to argue in such a
manner as this. (Old Testament Canon, [S] 22, page 369.)

In the investigation thus far we have learned that under the old covenant infants were included, so were slaves, taken in war or bought with money. The covenant was with a nation, involving national laws and customs, and promising national and temporal blessings. The duly recognized, as embraced under that covenant, were not thereby entitled to eternal life. As the entire flesh of the nation, for national purposes, was included, the infants of that nation, from the moment of birth, stood in covenant relation with God and the covenant people. There was no ceremonial by which they entered into that relationship--they were born into it. They came not in by circumcision, for the male infant, continuing uncircumcised, was not said to be debarred from entering, but was to be "cut off" from the people which implies previous covenant relationship.

But all this is reversed under the new covenant. No one nation is chosen, but the people of the covenant are to be those who respond to a call made to all nations. No family is chosen, but the blessing is offered to each of all the families of earth. No infant is either invited or excluded, except as it comes to faith in, and obedience to, the Son of God. The covenant blessings are not national and eternal, based upon a living and active faith. As a consequence, infants are not, and could not possibly be embraced in the new covenant; and as the Church of Christ, as to its divinely-ordained membership, consists of those who have thus believed in him, infants are not and can not be in the Church of Christ, therefore are not subjects of baptism, for all who are Scripturally baptized enter into the church.

We now turn our attention to the remaining methods by which the practice of infant baptism could be proven. They are: (1) Express command of an inspired man; or, (2) by an example from Scripture where an inspired man baptized infants, or where it was done in his presence, by his consent and approval. Inasmuch as it is admitted by renowned pedobaptists that there is neither express command for or example of infant baptism in the New Testament, I will make no attempt to answer the arguments to prove it, but let the most learned of their number speak for themselves. This is legitimate and has the divine sanction, for Jesus said: "Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee" (Luke 19:22); and Paul, in meeting opposition to his preaching, said: "As certain even of your own poets have said" (Acts 17:28); and again: "One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said" (Titus 1:12).

Henry Alford, one of the most variously-learned clergymen that the Church of England has produced, says:

The language of the Bible is against them; and, on their own ground,
which is a very sore perplexity. There is one escape, and that is a
perfectly effectual one; but they are unwilling to avail themselves of
its assistance. They might declare, and they ought to declare, that
infant baptism was a practice unknown to the apostles; that not only
does the New Testament not give one single expression which plainly
and necessarily implies that infants were baptized in the apostolical
churches, but it can be fairly argued from a passage in chapter 7 of
II Corinthians 7 that such a practice could not have existed at
Corinth. The recognition that the baptism of adults was the only
baptism known to the apostles would clear every difficulty on this
point out of the way of the Low Churchmen. It is natural that the
sacred writers should assume that men who, at great worldly sacrifice,
not free from risk of life, came forward to profess the Christian
faith by a solemn initiatory rite, possessed the frame of mind which
that fact implied--that they were honestly changed and renewed beings.
And then it would be easy to pass on the conclusion that the baptismal
service of the Church of England has been constructed on the language
of the Bible, and that the embarrassment has proceeded not from a
mistaken view of baptism, but from the application of the words used
by Scripture of an adult person to an unconscious and, so to say,
mindless infant. (Contemporary Review, Vol. 10, page 329.)

Joseph Ager Beet, one of the finest scholars that the English Wesleyan Methodist Church has produced, Professor of Systematic Theology in the Wesleyan Theological College, Richmond, England, says:

It must be at once admitted that the New Testament contains no clear
proof that infants were baptized in the days of the apostles.
(Christian Baptism, page 28.)

Albert Taylor Bledsoe, of whom it has been truthfully said, "He was one of the most candid and trustworthy writers that the Methodist Church has produced," says:

It is an article of our faith, that "the baptism of young children
(infants) is in any wise to be retained in the church, as one most
agreeable to the institution of Christ." But yet, with all our
searching, we have been unable to find, in the New Testament, a single
express declaration, or word, in favor of infant baptism. We justify
this rite, therefore, solely on the ground of logical inference, and
not on any express word of Christ or his apostles. This may, perhaps,
be deemed, by some of our readers, a strange position for a
pedobaptist. It is by no means, however, a singular opinion. Hundreds
of learned pedobaptists have come to the same conclusion; especially
since the New Testament has been subjected to a closer, more
conscientious, and more candid exegesis than was formerly practiced by
controversalists. (Southern Review, Vol. 14, page 334.)

John Calvin, the founder of the Presbyterian Church, says:

As Christ enjoins them to teach before baptizing, and desires that
none but believers shall be admitted to baptism, it would appear that
baptism is not properly administered unless when preceded by faith.
(Harmony of the Evangelists, Vol. 3, page 38.)

Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, German Lutheran, the "prince of New Testament exegetes," says:

The baptism of the children of Christians, of which no trace is found
in the New Testament, is not to be held as an apostolic ordinance; but
it is an institution of the church, which gradually arose in
post-apostolic times in connection with the development of
ecclesiastical life and of doctrinal teaching, not certainly attested
before Tertullian, and by him still decidedly opposed, and although
already defended by Cyprian, only becoming general after the time of
Augustine in virtue of that connection. (Commentary on Acts 16:15,
page 312.)

August Wilhelm Neander, Lutheran, who is unanimously conceded to be by far the greatest of all ecclesiastical historians, and is surnamed "the father of modern church history," says:

Baptism was administered at first only to adults, as men were
accustomed to conceive baptism and faith as strictly connected. We
have all reason for not deriving infant baptism from apostolic
institution somewhat later, as an apostolical tradition serves to
confirm this hypothesis. (Church History, Vol. 1, page 424.)

Moses Stuart, a Congregationalist, called "the father of Biblical literature in America", says:

On the subject of infant baptism I have said nothing. The present
occasion did not call for it; and I have no wish or intention to enter
into the controversy respecting it. I have only to say that I believe
in both the propriety and expediency of the rite thus administered;
and therefore accede to it ex animo. Commands, or plain and certain
examples, in the New Testament relative to it, I do not find. Nor,
with my views of it, do I need them. (Mode of Christian Baptism, pages
189, 190.)

But I have given enough; it is a thing made out that infant baptism was not an apostolic practice. So, indeed, have all the scholars who have thoroughly investigated this subject conceded. I know of no subject which seems to be more clearly made out, and I can not see how it is possible for any candid man who examines the subject to deny this.