The Polemics of Infant Baptism

The question of the Subjects of Baptism is one of that class of problems the solution of which hangs upon a previous question. According as is our doctrine of the Church, so will be our doctrine of the Subjects of Baptism. If we believe, with the Church of Rome, that the Church is in such a sense the institute of salvation that none are united to Christ save through the instrumentality of her ordinances, then we shall inevitably determine the proper subjects of her ordinances in one way. If, on the other hand, we believe, with the Protestant bodies, that only those already united to Christ have right within His house and to its privileges, we shall inevitably determine them in another way. All Protestants should easily agree that only Christ’s children have a right to the ordinance of baptism. The cleavage in their ranks enters in only when we inquire how the external Church is to hold itself relatively to the recognition of the children of Christ. If we say that its attitude should be as exclusive as possible, and that it must receive as the children of Christ only those whom it is forced to recognize as such, then we shall inevitably narrow the circle of the subjects of baptism to the lowest limits. If, on the other hand, we say that its attitude should be as inclusive as possible, and that it should receive as the children of Christ all whom, in the judgment of charity, it may fairly recognize as such, then we shall naturally widen the circle of the subjects of baptism to far more ample limits. The former represents, broadly speaking, the Puritan idea of the Church, the latter the general Protestant doctrine. It is on the basis of the Puritan conception of the Church that the Baptists are led to exclude infants from baptism. For, if we are to demand anything like demonstrative evidence of actual participation in Christ before we baptize, no infant, who by reason of years is incapable of affording signs of his union with Christ, can be thought a proper subject of the rite.

The vice of this system, however, is that it attempts the impossible. No man can read the heart. As a consequence, it follows that no one, however rich his manifestation of Christian graces, is baptized on the basis of infallible knowledge of his relation to Christ. All baptism is inevitably administered on the basis not of knowledge but of presumption. And if we must baptize on presumption, the whole principle is yielded; and it would seem that we must baptize all whom we may fairly presume to be members of Christ’s body. In this state of the case, it is surely impracticable to assert that there can be but one ground on which a fair presumption of inclusion in Christ’s body can be erected, namely, personal profession of faith. Assuredly a human profession is no more solid basis to build upon than a divine promise. So soon, therefore, as it is fairly apprehended that we baptize on presumption and not on knowledge, it is inevitable that we shall baptize all those for whom we may, on any grounds, fairly cherish a good presumption that they belong to God’s people — and this surely includes the infant children of believers, concerning the favor of God to whom there exist many precious promises on which pious parents, Baptists as fully as others, rest in devout faith.

To this solid proof of the rightful inclusion of the infant children of believers among the subjects of baptism, is added the unavoidable implication of the continuity of the Church of God, as it is taught in the Scriptures, from its beginning to its consummation; and of the undeniable inclusion within the bounds of this Church, in its pre-Christian form, as participants of its privileges, inclusive of the parallel rite of circumcision, of the infant children of the flock, with no subsequent hint of their exclusion. To this is added further the historical evidence of the prevalence in the Christian Church of the custom of baptizing the infant children of believers, from the earliest Christian ages down to to-day. The manner in which it is dealt with by Augustine and the Pelagians in their controversy, by Cyprian in his letter to Fidus, by Tertullian in his treatise on baptism, leaves no room for doubt that it was, at the time when each of these writers wrote, as universal and unquestioned a practice among Christians at large as it is to-day — while, wherever it was objected to, the objection seems to have rested on one or the other of two contrary errors, either on an overestimate of the effects of baptism or on an underestimate of the need of salvation for infants.

On such lines as these a convincing positive argument is capable of being set forth for infant baptism, to the support of which whatever obscure allusions to it may be found in the New Testament itself may then be summoned. And on these lines the argument has ordinarily been very successfully conducted, as may be seen by consulting the treatment of the subject in any of our standard works on systematic theology, as for example Dr. Charles Hodge’s.² It has occurred to me that additional support might be brought to the conclusions thus positively attained by observing the insufficiency of the case against infant baptism as argued by the best furnished opponents of that practice. There would seem no better way to exhibit this insufficiency than to subject the presentation of the arguments against infant baptism, as set forth by some confessedly important representative of its opponents, to a running analysis. I have selected for the purpose the statement given in Dr. A. H. Strong’s “Systematic Theology.”³ What that eminently well-informed and judicious writer does not urge against infant baptism may well be believed to be confessedly of small comparative weight as an argument against the doctrine and practice. So that if we do not find the arguments he urges conclusive, we may well be content with the position we already occupy.

Dr. Strong opens the topic, “The Subjects of Baptism,”⁴ with the statement that “the proper subjects of baptism are those only who give credible evidence that they have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit, — or, in other words, have entered by faith into the communion of Christ’s death and resurrection “— a statement which if, like the ordinary language of the Scriptures, it is intended to have reference only to the adults to whom it is addressed, would be sufficiently unexceptionable; but which the “only” advertises us to suspect to be more inclusive in its purpose. This statement is followed at once by the organized “proof that only persons giving evidence of being regenerated are proper subjects of baptism.” This proof is derived:

Each of these items is supported by Scripture texts, though some of them are no doubt sufficiently inapposite. As, for example, when only John iii. 5 and Rom. vi. 13— neither of which has anything to do with the visible Church — are quoted to prove that the visible Church (of which baptism is an ordinance) is “a company of regenerate persons”; or as when Matt. xxviii. 19 is quoted to prove that baptism took place after the discipling, as if the words ran maqhteujsante" baptijzete, whereas the passage, actually standing maqhteujsate baptijzonte", merely demands that the discipling shall be consummated in, shall be performed by means of baptism; or as when Acts x. 47, where the fact that the extraordinary power of the Holy Spirit had come upon Cornelius is pleaded as reason why baptism should not be withheld from him,⁵and Rom. vi. 2—5, which only develops the spiritual implication of baptism, are made to serve as proofs that the symbolism of the ordinance declares always and constantly a “previous” spiritual change. Apart from the Scriptural evidence actually brought forward, moreover, the propositions, in the extreme form in which they are stated, cannot be supported by Scripture. The Scriptures do not teach that the external Church is a company of regenerate persons — the parable of the tares for example declares the opposite: though they represent that Church as the company of those who are presumably regenerate. They do not declare that baptism demonstrates a “previous” change — the case of Simon Magus, Acts viii. 13, is enough to exhibit the contrary: though they represent the rite as symbolical of the inner cleansing presumed to be already present, and consequently as administered only on profession of faith.

The main difficulty with Dr. Strong’s argument, however, is the illegitimate use it makes of the occasional character of the New Testament declarations. He is writing a “Systematic Theology” and is therefore striving to embrace the whole truth in his statements: he says therefore with conscious reference to infants, whose case he is soon to treat, “Those only are to be baptized who have previously repented and believed,” and the like. But the passages he quotes in support of this position are not drawn from a “Systematic Theology” but from direct practical appeals to quite definite audiences, consisting only of adults; or from narratives of what took place as the result of such appeals. Because Peter told the men that stood about him at Pentecost, “Repent ye and be baptized,” it does not follow that baptism might not have been administered by the same Peter to the infants of those repentant sinners previous to the infants’ own repentance. Because Philip baptized the converts of Samaria only after they had believed, it does not follow that he would not baptize their infants until they had grown old enough to repeat their parents’ faith, that they might, like them, receive its sign.

The assertion contained in the first proof is, therefore, a non sequitur from the texts offered in support of it. There is a suppressed premise necessary to be supplied before the assumed conclusion follows from them, and that premise is that the visible Church consists of believers only without inclusion of their children — that Peter meant nothing on that day of Pentecost when he added to the words which Dr. Strong quotes: “Repent ye and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins” — those other words which Dr. Strong does not quote: “For to you is the promise and to your children” (Acts ii. 38, 39). This suppressed premise Dr. Strong adjoins in the second item of proof which he adduces; but we must observe that it is not a second item, but a necessary element in the first item which without it is invalid. In a word, when we correct the Scripture he adduces and the illegitimate use he makes of Scripture, Dr. Strong’s whole argument reduces to the one item of the “nature of the Church, as a company of regenerate persons.” It is only on the ground that this is the true idea of the Church that the passages quoted to prove that baptism is to be administered “only” to such as have previously repented and believed, and those quoted to prove that the symbolism of the ordinance declares a “previous” spiritual change in him who submits to it, will justify the “only “ and “previous” in which lies their point. The validity of the proof he offers thus depends on the truth of the assertion that the Church consists of regenerate persons; and whether this be true or not we need not here stay to examine: certainly the texts he adduces in proof of it, as already intimated, make no approach to establishing it. We rest securely in the result that according to Dr. Strong’s argument as well as our own conviction, the subjects of baptism are the members of the visible Church: and who those are, will certainly be determined by our theory of the nature of the Church.

A page or two further on⁶ he takes up the question of “Infant Baptism” ex professo. This “we reject and reprehend,” he tells us, and that for the following reasons, viz.:

(a) When we ask after a direct Scriptural warrant for infant baptism, in the sense which Dr. Strong has in mind in the first of these arguments, we, of course, have the New Testament in view, seeing that it is only in the new dispensation that this rite has been ordained. In this sense of the words, we may admit his first declaration — that there is no express command that infants should be baptized; and with it also his second — that there is in Scripture no clear example of the baptism of infants, that is, if we understand by this that there is no express record, reciting in so many words, that infants were baptized. When he adds to these, however, a third contention, that “the passages held to imply infant baptism contain, when fairly interpreted, no reference to such a practice,” we begin to recalcitrate. If it were only asserted that these passages contain no such stringent proof that infants were baptized as would satisfy us on the point in the absence of other evidence, we might yield this point also. But it is too much to ask us to believe that they contain “no reference to the practice” if “ fairly interpreted.” What is a “fair” interpretation? Is it not an interpretation which takes the passages as they stand, without desire to make undue capital of them one way or the other? Well, a fair interpretation of these passages, in this sense, might prevent paedobaptists from claiming them as a demonstrative proof of infant baptism, and it would also certainly prevent anti-paedobaptists from asserting that they have “no reference to such a practice.” It should lead both parties to agree that the passages have a possible but not a necessary reference to infant baptism — that they are neutral passages, in a word, which apparently imply infant baptism, but which may be explained without involving that implication if we otherwise know that infant baptism did not exist in that day. Fairly viewed, in other words, they are passages which will support any other indications of infant baptism which may be brought forward, but which will scarcely suffice to prove it against evidence to the contrary, or to do more than raise a presumption in its favor in the absence of other evidence for it. For what are these passages? The important ones are Acts xvi. 15, which declares that Lydia was “baptized and her household,” and Acts xvi. 33, which declares that the jailer was “baptized and all his,” together with I Cor. i. 16, “And I baptized also the household of Stephanas.” Certainly at first blush we would think that the repeated baptism of households without further description, would imply the baptism of the infants connected with them. It may be a “fair” response to this that we do not know that there were any infants in these households — which is true enough, but not sufficient to remove the suspicion that there may have been. It may be a still “fairer” reply to say that whether the infants of these families (if there were infants in them) were baptized or not, would depend on the practice of the apostles; and whatever that practice was would be readily understood by the first readers of the Acts. But this would only amount to asking that infant baptism should not be founded solely on these passages alone; and this we have already granted.

Neither of these lines of argument is adduced by Dr. Strong. They would not justify his position — which is not that the baptism of infants cannot be proved by these passages, but much more than this — that a fair interpretation of them definitely excludes all reference to it by them. Let us see what Dr. Strong means by a “ fair” interpretation. To the case of Lydia he appends “cf. 40,” which tells us when Paul and Silas were loosed from prison “they entered into the house of Lydia, and when they had seen the brethren they comforted them and departed” — from which, apparently, he would have us make two inferences, (1) that these “brethren” constituted the household of Lydia that was baptized, and (2) that these “brethren” were all adults. In like manner to the case of the jailer he appends the mystic “cf. 34,” which tells us that the saved jailer brought his former prisoners up into his house and set meat before them and “rejoiced greatly, having believed, with all his house, on God “ — from which he would apparently have us infer that there was no member of the household, baptized by Paul, who was too young to exercise personal faith. So he says with reference to I Cor. i. 16, that “I Cor. xvi. 15 shows that the whole family of Stephanas, baptized by Paul, were adults.” Nevertheless, when we look at I Cor. xvi. 15, we read merely that the house of Stephanas were the first fruits of Achaia and that they had set themselves to minister unto the saints — which leaves the question whether they are all adults or not just where it was before, that is, absolutely undetermined.

Nor is this all. To these passages Dr. Strong appends two others, one properly enough, I Cor. vii. 14, where Paul admonishes the Christian not to desert the unbelieving husband or wife, “for the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the brother; else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.” This is doubtless a passage similar to the others; a passage certainly which does not explicitly teach infant baptism, but equally certainly which is not inconsistent with it — which would, indeed, find a ready explanation from such a custom if such a custom existed, and therefore stands as one of the passages which raise at least a suspicion that infant baptism underlies the form of expression — since the holiness of the children is taken for granted in it and the sanctification of the unbelieving partner inferred from it — but is yet no doubt capable of an explanation on the supposition that that practice did not exist and is therefore scarcely a sure foundation for a doctrine asserting it. Dr. Strong is, however, not satisfied with showing that no stringent inference can be drawn from it in favor of infant baptism. He claims it as a “sure testimony,” a “plain proof” against infant baptism, on the grounds that the infants and the unbelieving parent are put by it in the same category, and (quoting Jacobi) that if children had been baptized, Paul would certainly have referred to their baptism as a proof of their holiness. And this in the face of the obvious fact that the holiness of the children is assumed as beyond dispute and in no need of proof, doubt as to which would be too horrible to contemplate, and the sanctification of the husband or wife inferred from it. Of course, it is the sanctity or holiness of external connection and privilege that is referred to, both with reference to the children and the parent; but that of the one is taken for granted, that of the other is argued; hence it lies close to infer that the one may have had churchly recognition and the other not. Whether that was true or not, however, the passage cannot positively decide for us; it only raises a suspicion. But this suspicion ought to be frankly recognized.

The other passage which is adjoined to these is strangely found in their company, although it, too, is one of the “neutral texts.” It is Matt. xix. 14: “Suffer the little children and forbid them not to come unto me; for to such belongeth the kingdom of heaven.” What has this to do with baptism? Certainly nothing directly; only if it be held indirectly to show that infants were received by Christ as members of His Kingdom on earth, that is, of His Church, can it bear on the controversy. But notice Dr. Strong’s comment: “None would have ‘forbidden,’ if Jesus and his disciples had been in the habit of baptizing infants.” Does he really think this touches the matter that is raised by this quotation? Nobody supposes that “Jesus and his disciples” were in the habit of baptizing infants; nobody supposes that at the time these words were spoken, Christian baptism had been so much as yet instituted. Dr. Strong would have to show, not that infant baptism was not practised before baptism was instituted, but that the children were not designated by Christ as members of His “Kingdom,” before the presumption for infant baptism would be extruded from this text. It is his unmeasured zeal to make all texts which have been appealed to by paedobaptists — not merely fail to teach paedobaptism — but teach that children were not baptized, that has led him so far astray here.

We cannot profess to admire, then, the “fair” interpretations which Dr. Strong makes of these texts. No one starting out without a foregone conclusion could venture to say that, when “fairly interpreted,” they certainly make no reference to baptism of infants. Nevertheless, I freely allow that they do not suffice, taken by themselves, to prove that infants were baptized by the apostles — they only suggest this supposition and raise a presumption for it. And, therefore, I am prepared to allow in general the validity of Dr. Strong’s first argument — when thus softened to reasonable proportions. It is true that there is no express command to baptize infants in the New Testament, no express record of the baptism of infants, and no passages so stringently implying it that we must infer from them that infants were baptized. If such warrant as this were necessary to justify the usage we should have to leave it incompletely justified. But the lack of this express warrant is something far short of forbidding the rite; and if the continuity of the Church through all ages can be made good, the warrant for infant baptism is not to be sought in the New Testament but in the Old Testament, when the Church was instituted, and nothing short of an actual forbidding of it in the New Testament would warrant our omitting it now. As Lightfoot expressed it long ago, “It is not forbidden” in the New Testament to “baptize infants, — therefore, they are to be baptized.⁷ Dr. Strong commits his first logical error in demanding express warrant for the continuance of a long- settled institution, instead of asking for warrant for setting it aside.

(b) If thus the first argument is irrelevant as a whole as well as not very judiciously put in its details, is not its failure well atoned for in the second one? His second argument undertakes to show that “infant baptism is expressly contradicted” by Scriptural teaching. Here, at length, we have the promise of what was needed. But if we expect stringent reason here for the alteration of the children-including covenant, we shall be sadly disappointed. Dr. Strong offers four items. First, infant baptism is contradicted “by the Scriptural prerequisites of faith and repentance, as signs of regeneration,” which is valid only on the suppressed assumption that baptism is permissible only in the case of those who prove a previous regeneration — which is the very point in dispute. Secondly, “by the Scriptural symbolism of the ordinance.” “As we should not bury a person before his death, so we should not symbolically bury a person by baptism until he has in spirit died to sin.” Here not only that the symbolism of baptism is burial is gratuitously assumed, but also that this act, whatever be its symbolism, could be the symbol only of an already completed process in the heart of the recipient — which again is the very point in dispute. Thirdly, “by the Scriptural constitution of the church “— where again the whole validity of the argument depends on the assumption that infants are not members of the Church — the very point in dispute. These three arguments must therefore be thrown at once out of court. If the Scriptures teach that personal faith and repentance are prerequisites to baptism, if they teach that one must have previously died to sin before he is baptized, if they teach that the visible Church consists of regenerate adults only — why, on any of these three identical propositions, each of which implies all the others, of course infants may not be baptized — for this again is but an identical proposition with any of the three. But it is hardly sound argumentation simply to repeat the matter in dispute in other words and plead it as proof.

The fourth item is more reasonable — “ By the Scriptural prerequisites for participation in the Lord’s Supper. Participation in the Lord’s Supper is the right only of those who can ‘discern the Lord’s body’ (I Cor. xi. 29). No reason can be assigned for restricting to intelligent communicants the ordinance of the Supper, which would not equally restrict to intelligent believers the ordinance of Baptism.” Hence Dr. Strong thinks the Greek Church more consistent in administering the Lord’s Supper to infants. It seems, however, a sufficient answer to this to point to the passage quoted: the express declaration of Scripture, that those who are admitted to the Lord’s Supper — a declaration made to those who were already baptized Christians — should be restricted to those who discern the Lord’s body, is a sufficient Scriptural reason for restricting participation in the Lord’s Supper to intelligent communicants; while the absence of that Scripture restriction in its case is a sufficient Scriptural reason for refusing to apply it to baptism. If we must support this Scriptural reason with a purely rational one, it may be enough to add that the fact that baptism is the initiatory rite of the Church supplies us with such a reason. The ordinances of the Church belong to the members of it; but each in its own appointed time. The initiatory ordinance belongs to the members on becoming members, other ordinances become their right as the appointed seasons for enjoying them roll around. We might as well argue that a citizen of the United States has no right to the protection of the police until he can exercise the franchise. The rights all belong to him: but the exercise of each comes in its own season. It is easily seen by the help of such examples that the possession of a right to the initiatory ordinance of the Church need not carry with it the right to the immediate enjoyment of all church privileges: and thus the challenge is answered to show cause why the right to baptism does not carry with it the right to communion in the Lord’s Supper.⁸ With this challenge the second argument of Dr. Strong is answered, too.

(c) The third argument is really an attempt to get rid of the pressure of the historical argument for infant baptism. Is it argued that the Christian Church from the earliest traceable date baptized infants? — that this is possibly hinted in Justin Martyr, assumed apparently in Irenaeus, and openly proclaimed as apostolical by Origen and Cyprian while it was vainly opposed by Tertullian? In answer it is replied that all these writers taught baptismal regeneration and that infant baptism was an invention coming in on the heels of baptismal regeneration and continued in existence by State Churches. There is much that is plausible in this contention. The early Church did come to believe that baptism was necessary to salvation; this doctrine forms a natural reason for the extension of baptism to infants, lest dying unbaptized they should fail of salvation. Nevertheless, the contention does not seem to be the true explanation of the line of development. First, it confuses a question of testimony to fact with a question of doctrine. The two — baptismal regeneration and infant baptism — do not stand or fall together, in the testimony of the Fathers. Their unconscious testimony to a current practice proves its currency in their day; but their witness to a doctrine does not prove its truth. We may or may not agree with them in their doctrine of baptismal regeneration. But we cannot doubt the truth of their testimony to the prevalence of infant baptism in their day. We admit that their day is not the apostles’ day. We could well wish that we had earlier witness. We may be sure from the witness of Origen and Cyprian that they were baptized in their infancy — that is, that infant baptism was the usual practice in the age of Irenaeus — a conclusion which is at once strengthened by and strengthens the witness of Irenaeuus. But the practice of the latter half of the second century need not have been the practice of the apostles. A presumption is raised, however — even though so weak a one that it would not stand against adverse evidence. But where is the adverse evidence? Secondly, Dr. Strong’s view reverses the historical testimony. As a matter of history it was not the inauguration of the practice of infant baptism which the doctrine of baptismal regeneration secured, but the endangering of it. It was because baptism washed away all sin and after that there remained no more layer for regeneration, that baptism was postponed. It is for this reason that Tertullian proposes its postponement. Lastly, though the historical evidence may not be conclusive for the apostolicity of infant baptism, it is in that direction and is all that we have. There is no evidence from primitive church history against infant baptism, except the ambiguous evidence of Tertullian; so that our choice is to follow history and baptize infants or to reconstruct by a priori methods a history for which we have no evidence.

(d) Dr. Strong’s fourth item is intended as a refutal of the reasoning by which the advocates of paedobaptism support their contention. As such it naturally takes up the reasoning from every kind of sources and it is not strange that some of the reasoning adduced in it is as distasteful to us as it is to him. We should heartily unite with him in refusing to allow the existence of any power in the Church to modify or abrogate any command of Christ. Nor could we find any greater acceptability than he does in the notion of an “organic connection” between the parent and the child, such as he quotes Dr. Bushnell as advocating. Nevertheless we can believe in a parent acting as representative of the child of his loins, whose nurture is committed to him; and we can believe that the status of the parent determines the status of the child — in the Church of the God whose promise is “to you and your children,” as well as, for example, in the State. And we can believe that the Church includes the minor children of its members for whom they must as parents act, without believing that it is thereby made a hereditary body. I do not purpose here to go over again the proofs, which Dr. lodge so cogently urges, that go to prove the continuity of the Church through the Old and New dispensations — remaining under whatever change of dispensation the same Church, with the same laws of entrance and the same constituents. The antithesis which Dr. Strong adduces — that “the Christian Church is either a natural, hereditary body, or it was merely typified by the Jewish people “— is a false antithesis. The Christian Church is not a natural, hereditary body and yet it is not merely the antitype of Israel. It is, the apostles being witnesses, the veritable Israel itself. It carried over into itself all that was essentially Israelitish — all that went to make up the body of God’s people. Paul’s figures of the olive tree in Romans and of the breaking down of the middle wall of partition in Ephesians, suffice to demonstrate this; and besides these figures he repeatedly asserts it in the plainest language.

So fully did the first Christians — the apostles — realize the continuity of the Church, that they were more inclined to retain parts of the outward garments of the Church than to discard too much. Hence circumcision itself was retained; and for a considerable period all initiates into the Church were circumcised Jews and received baptism additionally. We do not doubt that children born into the Church during this age were both circumcised and baptized. The change from baptism superinduced upon circumcision to baptism substituted for circumcision was slow, and never came until it was forced by the actual pressure of circumstances. The instrument for making this change and so — who can doubt it? — for giving the rite of baptism its right place as the substitute for circumcision, was the Apostle Paul. We see the change formally constituted at the so-called Council of Jerusalem, in Acts xv. Paul had preached the gospel to Gentiles and had received them into the Church by baptism alone, thus recognizing it alone as the initiatory rite, in the place of circumcision, instead of treating as heretofore the two together as the initiatory rites into the Christian Church. But certain teachers from Jerusalem, coming down to Antioch, taught the brethren “except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses ye cannot be saved.” Paul took the matter before the Church of Jerusalem from which these new teachers professed to emanate; and its formal decision was that to those who believed and were baptized circumcision was not necessary.

How fully Paul believed that baptism and circumcision were but two symbols of the same change of heart, and that one was instead of the other, may be gathered from Col. ii. 11, when, speaking to a Christian audience of the Church, he declares that “in Christ ye were also circumcised “— but how? — “with a circumcision not made with hands, in putting off the body of the flesh,” — that is, in the circumcision of Christ. But what was this Christ-ordained circumcision? The Apostle continues: “Having been buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.” Hence in baptism they were buried with Christ, and this burial with Christ was the circumcision which Christ ordained, in the partaking of which they became the true circumcision. This falls little, if any, short of a direct assertion that the Christian Church is Israel, and has Israel’s circumcision, though now in the form of baptism. Does the view of Paul, now, contradict the New Testament idea of the Church, or only the Baptist idea of the Church? No doubt a large number of the members of the primitive Church did insist, as Dr. Strong truly says, that those who were baptized should also be circumcised: and no doubt, this proves that in their view baptism did not take the place of circumcision. But this was an erroneous view: is represented in the New Testament as erroneous; and it is this exact view against which Paul protested to the Church of Jerusalem and which the Church of Jerusalem condemned in Acts xv. Thus the Baptist denial of the substitution of baptism for circumcision leads them into the error of this fanatical, pharisaical church-party! Let us take our places in opposition, along with Paul and all the apostles.

Whether, then, that the family is the unit of society is a relic of barbarism or not, it is the New Testament basis of the Church of God. God does make man the head of the woman — does enjoin the wife to be in subjection to her husband — and does make the parents act on behalf of their minor children. He does, indeed, require individual faith for salvation; but He organizes His people in families first; and then into churches, recognizing in their very warp and woof the family constitution. His promises are all the more precious that they are to us and our children. And though this may not fit in with the growing individualism of the day, it is God’s ordinance.

(e) Dr. Strong’s fifth argument is drawn from the divergent modes in which paedobaptists defend their position and from the decline among them of the practice of the rite. Let us confess that we do not all argue alike or aright. But is not this a proof rather of the firm establishment in our hearts of the practice? We all practise alike; and it is the propriety of the practice, not the propriety of our defense of it, that is, after all, at stake. But the practice is declining, it is said. Perhaps this is true. Dr. Vedder’s statistics seem to show it. But if so, does the decline show the practice to be wrong, or Christians to be unfaithful? It is among paedobaptists that the decline is taking place — those who still defend the practice. Perhaps it is the silent influence of Baptist neighbors; perhaps it is unfaithfulness in parents; perhaps the spread of a Quakerish sentiment of undervaluation of ordinances. Many reasons may enter into the account of it. But how does it show the practice to be wrong? According to the Baptist reconstruction of history, the Church began by not baptizing infants. But this primitive and godly practice declined — rapidly declined — until in the second century all infants were baptized and Tertullian raised a solitary and ineffectual voice crying a return to the older purity in the third. Did that decline of a prevalent usage prove it to be a wrong usage? By what logic can the decline in the second century be made an evidence in favor of the earlier usage, and that of the nineteenth an evidence against it?

(f) We must pass on, however, to the final string of arguments, which would fain point out the evil effects of infant baptism. First, it forestalls the act of the child and so prevents him from ever obeying Christ’s command to be baptized — which is simply begging the question. We say it obeys Christ’s command by giving the child early baptism and so marking him as the Lord’s. Secondly, it is said to induce superstitious confidence in an outward rite, as if it possessed regenerating efficacy; and we are pointed to frantic mothers seeking baptism for their dying children. Undoubtedly the evil does occur and needs careful guarding against. But it is an evil not confined to this rite, but apt to attach itself to all rites — which need not, therefore, be all abolished. We may remark, in passing, on the unfairness of bringing together here illustrative instances from French Catholic peasants and High Church Episcopalians, as if these were of the same order with Protestants. Thirdly, it is said to tend to corrupt Christian truth as to the sufficiency of Scripture, the connection of the ordinances, and the inconsistency of an impenitent life with church membership, as if infant baptism necessarily argued sacramentarianism, or as if the churches of other Protestant bodies were as a matter of fact more full of “impenitent members” than those of the Baptists. This last remark is in place also, in reply to the fourth point made, wherein it is charged that the practice of infant baptism destroys the Church as a spiritual body by merging it in the nation and in the world. It is yet to be shown that the Baptist churches are purer than the paedobaptist. Dr. Strong seems to think that infant baptism is responsible for the Unitarian defection in New England. I am afraid the cause lay much deeper. Nor is it a valid argument against infant baptism, that the churches do not always fulfill their duty to their baptized members. This, and not the practice of infant baptism, is the fertile cause of incongruities and evils innumerable.

Lastly, it is urged that infant baptism puts “into the place of Christ’s command a commandment of men, and so admit[s] . . . the essential principle of all heresy, schism, and false religion” — a good, round, railing charge to bring against one’s brethren: but as an argument against infant baptism, drawn from its effects, somewhat of a petitio principii. If true, it is serious enough. But Dr. Strong has omitted to give the chapter and verse where Christ’s command not to baptize infants is to be found. One or the other of us is wrong, no doubt; but do we not break an undoubted command of Christ when we speak thus harshly of our brethren, His children, whom we should love? Were it not better to judge, each the other mistaken, and recognize, each the other’s desire to please Christ and follow His commandments? Certainly I believe that our Baptist brethren omit to fulfill an ordinance of Christ’s house, sufficiently plainly revealed as His will, when they exclude the infant children of believers from baptism. But I know they do this unwittingly in ignorance; and I cannot refuse them the right hand of fellowship on that account.

But now, having run through these various arguments, to what conclusion do we come? Are they sufficient to set aside our reasoned conviction, derived from some such argument as Dr. Hodge’s, that infants are to be baptized? A thousand times no. So long as it remains true that Paul represents the Church of the Living God to be one, founded on one covenant (which the law could not set aside) from Abraham to to-day, so long it remains true that the promise is to us and our children and that the members of the visible Church consist of believers and their children — all of whom have a right to all the ordinances of the visible Church, each in its appointed season. The argument in a nutshell is simply this: God established His Church in the days of Abraham and put children into it. They must remain there until He puts them out. He has nowhere put them out. They are still then members of His Church and as such entitled to its ordinances. Among these ordinances is baptism, which standing in similar place in the New Dispensation to circumcision in the Old, is like it to be given to children.

Chantry is not even addressing here the critical “silence” issue which the “Baptist argument from silence” must address: The fact that infant inclusion within the Sign of the Covenant had already existed as a Covenantal ordinance for two millenia. If Jewish believers, who had already included their children in the Sign of the Covenant for 2,000 years, were now expected to exclude their children from the Sign of the Covenant, one would expect a specific commandment indicating that this change in sacramental practice was being instituted.

And yet no such commandment is found in the New Testament.

So you and Schlissel are saying Old Covenant circumcision equals New Covenant baptism. As Hebrews 10 and other scripture indicates so strongly, Christ abolished the Old Covenant of a national Chosen People and replaced it with a spiritual Chosen People. Certainly, we've covered this ground many times. However, the New Covenant does not correspond point-for-point with the Old Covenant. Not even close. So the the Old Covenant=New Covenant argument for infant baptism is inconsistent with the remainder of the theology of the Reformation.

The Old Covenenant did not provide for circumcision of females. Why do you then baptize female infants? What scripture do you base this on?

Being male and circumcised conferred privileges and responsibilities upon Jewish men under the Old Covenant. If females are considered "circumcized" by baptism (infant or believers), then upon what basis do you exclude them as pastors and elders, etc.?

Can you find in the baptisms performed by John the Baptist any indication that he baptized infants? Was his call to personal holiness as signified by water baptism one which could be administered to infants?

As noted, the parallel passage in Luke includes infants in the blessing. And one of the critical points here, is the fact that Jesus said that these infants were already “of the Kingdom of God” – already Citizens of the Kingdom.

Jesus enjoyed the advantage of already knowing His Own, having perfect confidence in who was Elect, and who was not. We do not enjoy this advantage; but we certainly pray it to be true of our children, and do not hesitate to bring them to our King for His blessing.

As Jesus' ministry grew, people flocked to Him in great numbers to seek healing and blessing. Mobs of people. I believe that the disciples tried to hold people back from bringing babies for blessing because the people came to Jesus in such numbers and with such need that they feared He would be exhausted by them. In fact, I believe that Jesus was routinely exhausted. In the Bible illustrations of this event and in religious art, often we see Jesus pictured as sitting quietly and alertly in a pastoral setting with no one around Him except a few children. I think a more realistic picture would be a mob of hundreds or even thousands and Jesus preaching and teaching and healing them for days and still the people kept coming, bringing to Him their every question and problem until He was thoroughly exhausted by it. I picture Him as sitting exhausted in the twilight after a long day and many more still waiting to see Him, so tired He can hardly move, and the disciples, wishing to spare Him more, tried to tell the people not to bring their children for His blessing.

There are no indications that the disciples hated children in particular or wished to deny them the blessing of Jesus. I believe they merely had a concern for their Master. Jesus' mild rebuke to them has always tended to paint them in a bad light to modern eyes. Especially generations of Sunday school teachers.

However, Jesus, teacher and healer, merely blessed these infants. He did not baptize them. He did not command them to be baptized. No pile of words or reasoning can erase this fact.

Chantry merely presumes sacramental discontinuity here. But presumption is not argument. The fact is, Paul specifically called Baptism “the Circumcision of Christ”, and as Benjamin B. Warfield points out, in like manner the Lord’s Supper is rightly regarded as Christian Passover: ...

This sort of extreme Covenantalism is indeed the road to Rome as has been pointed out so ably by my previous posts by Chantry and Piper. This ably demonstrates how the practice of infant baptism among Reformation churches and their descendants is rightly regarded as having its basis in the Old Testament, not the New.

What change, Mr. Chantry? Under the Ancient Covenant, the Covenant Sign was administered unto the infants, but the Covenant Supper was reserved unto the elder children.

The covenant sign was administered only to male infants. And my understanding is that both male and female Jewish children participated in the Passover feast. Again, the baptism=circumcision argument fails when applied consistently.

Chantry is faulting presbyterians for our Covenantal consistency. I hope he’ll understand if we regard “criticisms” like that as a compliment, and a badge of honor.

It is not consistent in any way. Paul explicity taught that male circumcision was unnecessary under the New Covenant. He instead preached the New Covenant in Christ, a circumcision of the heart for both males and females.

Thus, our concern in the administration of baptism is not to ascertain the regenerated status of the candidate, but simply to ascertain if, according to Scripture, he is lawfully to be regarded as a member of the covenant which baptism signifies and seals. - Schlissel

This presupposes that Christianity, like Judaism, is primarily hereditary. However, the ancient situation in Israel and throughout the Empire is not addressed.

Baptism as practiced in the New Testament was a sign of those who joined themselves to the New Covenant in Christ in rebellion to the state religion of Rome and often in a second rebellion against the state religion of Israel which had special exemption from spiritual acknowledgment of the pagan state religion. There were many other religions in the Roman empire. But the Roman emperor demanded lip service of everyone except Jews. Except for Jews, everyone had to publicly acknowledge the emporer's genius, his supposed divine spirit. Other religions were not persecuted as long as they did not refuse this token obedience to the emporer and his farcical state religion.

As we all know, this obeisance to the emperor became a test of early Christians. To refuse to sacrifice to the emperor was a capital crime, inviting prison and torture and execution by the state. Christians were oppressed and perecuted by both observant Jews and by Rome in this early period.

Generally, we can simplify the fluctuating situation of Roman tolerance of Jewish monotheism in this way: Rome and Jerusalem were partners in maintaining the two state religions of the Roman Empire. Judaism, because of its nationalist aspirations in Palestine, often became rebellious and disruptive, a tendency that surfaced repeatedly and resulted ultimately in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in Rome's version of a Final Solution to the "Jewish problem". However, Rome tolerated and allowed exemption to pagan worship of the emperor for Jews provided that the Jews did not try to rebel against Roman authority. The Jewish priests became the willing partners of Rome, knowing the terrible retribution Rome would exact upon a rebellious Israel. This is why by Roman and Jewish authority persecuted and crucified so many tens of thousands. Jesus ultimately fell into this net and was crucified. He was, in the eyes of the authorities of the time, a danger to both Rome and to Israel. So were his followers until the time of Constantine.

These early Christians were of two types. The first were Christians of Jewish descent who refused to worship and obey the strictures of the Old Covenant. Therefore, they were not protected from persecution by the state as Jews, having repudiated the only alternative to the state's pagan accepted by Rome. These Jewish Christians were fair game to both pagans and to Jews for denunication and persecution to torture and to death. The second type of early Christian was the Gentile Christian which had no exemption to the state pagan religion. Since he could not be regarded as a Jew, being a follower of Christ, he was also persecuted and often martyred for refusing to worship the pagan emperor.

New Testament baptism was an invitation to a death sentence. It was the mark of the believer, often performed publicly and invited denunciatoin by Jews and by pagans. This is consistent in the New Testament and in the recorded history of the early Church.

The unscriptural expansion of baptism to include infants ignores this early history of what the public testimony of faith in Christ as signified by baptism actually meant and the often lethal consequences of a public profession of Christ by baptism. These were days when speaking a single sentence for the cause of Christ could bring a death sentence.

Can you tell me exactly how infants fit into this picture of the early church and the realities of Christian life and Christian evangelism? The truth is, they simply do not.

At a fundamental level, Chantry is arguing a discontinuity of Covenant… for which he simply does not have the Scriptural support he requires.
“If, after two thousand years of having their children included in the covenant, the fulfillment of that Covenant in Christ now meant the exclusion of their children from the covenant (for if they are in fact members of the covenant, to withhold baptism would be to exalt the sign above the reality signified), if they were now excluded, that would not only be regarded as covenant regression, it seems reasonable to assume that quite a ruckus would be raised over that very point and would have needed to be addressed in the early church…” (Schlissel).
Yet there is no instruction of Covenantal exclusion whatsoever.

Nor were Jewish females circumcised under the Old Covenant. But both men and women (and undoubtedly some children) were baptized as believers under the New Covenant.

This mere repetition of Schlissel only hammers home the basic flaw in his argument from the perspective of a Christian of Jewish descent.

The Covenant is Visible and One.

The Old Covenant has passed away completely, the central point of the first half of Hebrews 10, a passage we've esamined at length. I'm beginning to watch myself for signs of using these verses as a Swiss Army knife, having noted that tendency in others. And yet, there are very few statements in the entire New Testament which speak so clearly and so conclusively of the New Covenant in Christ.

I believe in the New Covenant of believers in Jesus Christ, signified by baptism of believers, the only examples of baptism in the New Testament.

The notion set forth by Warfield and others that the Baptists "argue from silence" is among the weakest for their position. The uniform example of the New Testament is: belief in Christ, baptism, communion with a church of believers. Baptists follow this example in imitation of the New Testament example.

The position of the paedobaptists is, at best, merely an claim that they are not forbidden to baptize infants. And yet, there are no examples in the scripture of the baptism of infants. Again, the only justification for infant baptism must resort to covenantalism and the Old Testament, opening the door to Rome. In the case of Reformation churches, the door to Rome was simply never fully closed.

In this sense, Baptists are not Reformers. We never were. We completed the final Reformation and the rejection of all of Rome's practices, the corrupted practices of the state religion of the Roman empire. I believe that the retention of practices like infant baptism in most Reformed churches or celebrating the Eucharist in Lutheran churches have caused their mainstream denominations to decline.

As I've said repeatedly, much of this theology does not tell us whether someone is actually saved. I don't question your salvation. I say this repeatedly. I am more interested in the soundness of doctrine that enables churches to persevere in sound doctrine. The underlying issue is whether churches can maintain a sound theology over the course of decades or centuries. Certainly, Baptists have had their own problems as one observes the historical vicissitudes of Arminian notions in Baptist theology. And one sees when they stray to modernism and to Arminianism that they also decline. Generally, I see Spurgeon as the best exemplar of what a Calvinistic Baptist should be though he is no more absolutely infallible than Calvin was. Or any pope.

Has he overlooked the fact that Martin Luther held that the Biblical example of John the Baptizer was the cardinal argument which established and proved the Reformed Doctrine of Covenantal continuity? For the Anabaptist argument has ever been that only those who have entered the community of believers should be Baptized – yet Luther answered and said, “Yes… but John the Baptizer was a Believer -- even from his mother’s womb.” (“and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb” – Luke 1:15 ).

Piper did not overlook Luther's argument, it seems. He merely does not assume, as Luther did and as you argue here, that every infant is quickened by the Holy Spirit. The only reasonable conclusion from the account of John the Baptist is that this was a special action of God which was intended to confirm the blessing of Mary as the mother of Christ. John the Baptist was a special instance because his ministry and teaching was to prepare Jews for the teaching of Christ. To baptize the infant of any Christian merely because the Holy Spirit caused John to jump in his mother's womb as a sign to Mary and a sign of John's special mission is to fly in the face of reason.

In Luther’s view, Faith is accounted to the children of Believers from the moment of their conception – for it is on account of their Faith that the Elect are accounted Righteous; and the same God who has Elected them unto Himself, has already given them the Faith which will be manifested by outward profession in due time. The Promise is to us and to our children. Some, it is true, will turn out to be Tares; but this is NOT how believers are to treat their Children – “for of such is the kingdom of God”. We account them, not as heathen, but as little John the Baptists, unless and until they demonstrate themselves to be Tares.

Interesting historical point but not compelling. Yet again, Luther is using "Christian freedom" to do that which is not absolutely forbidden but which is at variance to all demonstrations of baptism in scripture. I think you must aleady realize the weakness of considering the children of all believers to be "little John the Baptists". The New Testament does not give this testimony of other infants.

Christian tradition does not indicate that John the Baptist himself baptized any infants. His was a call to renewed holiness in the Jewish faith until the time when Christ appeared and revealed Himself and was baptized. This was the beginning of Christ's own ministry and the opening of the Christian era.

Luther later told the Anabaptists that Mark (16:16) does not say 'he who confesses he has faith and is baptized, shall be saved.' For Mark says instead that 'he who believes and is baptized, shall be saved.'

Explained Luther: "It is true that a man should believe, for baptism.... But his faith, you do not know.... Because all men are liars, and only God knows the heart.... I do not get baptized because I am sure of faith, but because God has commanded it.... Who then can exclude the little children? ... We have a command to offer every one the universal gospel and the universal baptism. The children must also be included. We plant and water; and leave God to give the increase."

A good argument. But not scriptural. Again, the only examples in scripture are: belief, baptism, communion.

Christ is the New Covenant.

Warfield: "there is no express command to baptize infants in the New Testament, no express record of the baptism of infants and no passage so stringently implying it that we must infer from them that infants were baptized" (cited in Searching Together [Winter Quarter, 1984 – Vol.13:4], p.17).

A little quote from Mr. Warfield.

Charles Spurgeon:

If I thought it wrong to be a Baptist, I should give it up and become what I believed to be right . . . If we could find infant baptism in the Word of God, we would adopt it. It would help us out of a great difficulty, for it would take away from us that reproach which is attached to us – that we are odd and do not do as other people do. But we have looked well through the Bible and cannot find it, and do not believe it is there; nor do we believe that others can find infant baptism in the Scriptures, unless they themselves first put it there (Autobiography).

Being Catholic, I was baptized as a baby. What is it protestants do...a christening sans baptism when you choose the godparents and stuff? Just wondering. Personally, I think there are a lot of other things to argue about instead of how people in each faith or tradition choose to approach baptism

I was baptised as an infant in a RC church too.

This is a discussion between Christian Brothers (and at least one sister ..me *grin*)on how various traditions view baptism

It is a long but interesting read..

When we were baptised our parents and the church believe that the baptism made what was dead in sin alive..that we were "reborn" and no longer had the sin of Adam ,that would keep us from hearing the gospel.

Most Protestant faiths do not look at baptism as the "grace" that saves you from the sin of Adam.Instead it is seen as a "sign" ..in the case of some non Catholics it is a sign of the covenant relationaship between God and man as expressed in the NT,so it is a sacrament for infants to "mark" them as a promise of Gods covenant.

Others see it as an affirmation of a completed act of Gods Grace..so it is an "adult,belivers" sacrament.

So different churches have different traditions for infants..some like mine had "dedications" where the family brings the child forth and publically dedicated it to the Lord.Some have "God parents",and some do not.The church family pledges to assist in the spiritual formation of the child.

I am not sure what is done in the non catholic traditions where there is infant baptism..if they have "God Parents".

Warfield directly from the text above:

What has this to do with baptism? Certainly nothing directly; only if it be held indirectly to show that infants were received by Christ as members of His Kingdom on earth, that is, of His Church, can it bear on the controversy. But notice Dr. Strong’s comment: “None would have ‘forbidden,’ if Jesus and his disciples had been in the habit of baptizing infants.” Does he really think this touches the matter that is raised by this quotation? Nobody supposes that “Jesus and his disciples” were in the habit of baptizing infants; nobody supposes that at the time these words were spoken, Christian baptism had been so much as yet instituted. Dr. Strong would have to show, not that infant baptism was not practised before baptism was instituted, but that the children were not designated by Christ as members of His “Kingdom,” before the presumption for infant baptism would be extruded from this text. It is his unmeasured zeal to make all texts which have been appealed to by paedobaptists — not merely fail to teach paedobaptism — but teach that children were not baptized, that has led him so far astray here.

Sorry but I still do not see any indgination on the part of Warfield regarding infant baptism but rather an indigination towards Strongs premise that children are not members of the of Kingdom of God.

Sorry but I still do not see any indgination on the part of Warfield regarding infant baptism but rather an indigination towards Strongs premise that children are not members of the of Kingdom of God.

I read Warfield's position from the two quotes as follows: There are absolutely no indications in scripture that infants were baptized in the era of the writing of the New Testament. Warfield seems to be indignant that Strong said that many of the verses dealing with baptism forbade baptizing infants. I don't think I concluded at any point that Warfield was indignant. Warfield's position rests on Christian liberty and the Reformed reliance on the Old Testament to support paedobaptism. This liberty becomes arguable only because the New Testamnet failed to forbid paedobaptism.

Warfield's point is, as the rest of my texts demonstrate, irrelevant. No one supposes that Warfield opposed paedobaptism. Quite the opposite.

Here Chantry simply identifies in Presbyterian churches, a problem common to all churches – the problem of Tares and Wheat. Is the fact that some, who participate in “believer’s baptism”, fall away from the Church and thereby prove their own lack of regeneration, an indictment of the propriety of baptizing new adult converts into the Church? No, it is not.

To me this is the strongest argument for infant Baptism.

The truth is that many adults stand for baptism without having been saved. There is an element of presumption in adult as well as infant baptism.

Uriel do the reformed churchs do baptism by immersion at all,or is it all similar to the Roman tradition?

What is your churches position on a baptised infant later seeking an adult baptism as a outward sign of their salvation? Would it be seen as to no effect,would one of your pastors preform a "second" baptism.

GW what about Baptists? Wesleyans would ,in fact, encourage an adult baptism of a baptised infant (not as a requirement,but as a outward sign)

You may count me among the adherents to Steve Schlissel's argument that the Fellowship Meal should be restored to its proper place preceding the breaking of the bread and the passing of the wine. As there is no specific command warranting the exclusion of the Fellowship Meal, it should be restored to its proper place within the celebration of Christian Passover, the Lord's Supper. This would be, IMHO, the Covenantal thing to do.

I just read somwhere...maybe one one of the threads..(I get confused :) that we miss the import of Jesus being the "Bread of life" because we have removed the meal. The author pointed out that in Jewish tradition they ate the meal with bread ,not with a knife and fork.The bread was used to scoop up the food and put it in your mouth.Then the bread was consumed.

To the Jews a fork was "unclean" once it had been put in your mouth, so it sould not be used to scoop the next bite.The bread ,which could be consumed after it had brought the food to your mouth was the instrument that gave you substance,it in fact was the bread of life.

I had always looked to manna as the meaning of that phrase.but it seems it also has a meaning within the context of the meal itself.

The truth is that many adults stand for baptism without having been saved. There is an element of presumption in adult as well as infant baptism.

There was a man who was baptized in my Church about 6 months ago who has not showed up to Church since that time. It appears he thinks the baptism saved him. My Pastor advocates "adult dunking" and I lean towards infant baptism. This is probably the danger in Adult baptism the thought by some that the work is salvation.

It's unfortunate that our Threads on Covenant v. Dispensational theology lacked participation except by the rants of "end-timers". Notice how this subject, as do more important issues, seem to revolve around a persons Theological position. What is odd is the Calvinist Baptist usually advocate an covenantal position except on baptism in which they do an about face and become dispensationalists.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.