In fact, a more plausible historical case (IMHO) was that the AnaBaptistic practice of withholding Baptism from Infants developed as a reaction against the promulgation of a pernicious heresy which began to develop in the Churches at that time the heresy of Baptismal Regeneration, a heresy which endangered the Gospel itself, as it perverted the blessed Gospel from a Pauline doctrine of pure Monergism -- Salvation effected by God alone to a satanic doctrine of Synergism -- Salvation accomplished by God in part, but only in co-operation with the Works of Men.
Fortunately, however, there was no attack against infant baptism as such. For even the romanizing Church Universal rightly regarded babies too as sinners -- all stained with Adam's original sin. Thus, paedobaptism was clearly enunciated by: Lactantius; Asterius; Basil; Gregory of Nazianze; Gregory of Nyssa; Hilary; Ambrose; Chrysostom; Jerome; and Augustine. Yet Biblical sprinkling decreased, and magical submersion increased. -- The Anabaptists and their Stepchildren, F.N. Lee
We are now approaching the development of those corrupting influences which had been at work from the Apostolic age, silently sapping the foundations of personal piety. In adverting to the language employed by Justin Martyr and Irenæus, we endeavoured to clear those authors from the imputation of unevangelical sentiments, and to interpret their expressions in a sound and safe sense. But though it may be possible to hold them guiltless, it is feared that many of their cotemporaries were fairly open to the charge of holding unscriptural opinions. A notion had grown up, that baptism actually accomplished what was professed in it. As the miraculous gifts of the Spirit were often bestowed upon believers immediately after their baptism, men began to think that it was then first that the Spirit wrought on the soul. And as the act of obedience to the Saviour in the ordinance was commonly associated with spiritual enjoyments and manifestations, and happy converts, like the eunuch, went on their way rejoicing, there were some who came to the conclusion that what was connected with baptism was produced by it. If the convictions that led the candidate to the baptismal water, and impelled him to the act of dedication to the Saviors service, were greatly strengthened at his baptism, so that he then experienced a more intensely satisfying consciousness of pardon and union with Christ, results were confounded with causes, and the new believer was taught to ascribe to baptism the blessings which he had in fact enjoyed before, but which he realized more vividly when he obeyed the Lord.
This step taken, the transition to yet more perilous errors and evils was easy. When baptism was thus invested with a kind of supernatural power, the outward act was soon substituted for the spiritual qualification. -- J. M. Cramp, Baptist History
In like manner, about this time, the heresy of the State Establishment of the Church began to invade the Hierarchical communions:
Thus the Bishop Donatus, of Carthage, in 347, rejected the imperial commissioners, Paulus and Marcarius, with the acclamation: "Quid est imperatori cum eccleaia?" (Optatus, Milev., De Schismati Donat. 1. iii. c. 3). And truly indeed the emperor should not have had anything to do with the control of the church. The Donatist Bishop Petilian, in Africa, against whom Augustine wrote, appealed to Christ and the apostles who never persecuted. "Think you," says he, "to serve God by killing us with your hand? Ye err, if ye, poor mortals, think this; God has not hangmen for priests. Christ teaches us to bear wrong, not to revenge it," The Donatist bishop Gaudentius says: "God appointed prophets and fishermen, not princes and soldiers, to spread the faith." -- A History of the Baptists, John T. Christian
Against these heretical inventions of men, the mysticism of Baptismal Regeneration and the totalitarianism of Establishmentarianism, a number of non-conformist congregations began to arise including the AnaBaptistic communion:
In his early historical writings David Benedict, the Baptist historian, wrote with much caution of the denominational character of the Donatists. He followed closely the statements of other writers in his history; but in his last days he went into the original sources and produced a remarkable book called a "History of the Donatists" (Pawtucket, 1875). In that book he recedes from his noncommittal position and classes them as Baptists. He quite freely shows from Augustine and Optatus, who were contemporaries, that the Donatists rejected infant baptism and were congregational in their form of government.
Dr. Heman Lincoln dissented from some of the conclusions of Dr. Benedict and called them fanciful. But that they held some Baptist principles he did not doubt. He says:
As the Hierarchical communions began to impose upon the churches of Christ the twin heresies of Baptismal Regeneration and Establishmentarianism, the AnaBaptists renounced these hangmen with a double portion of rebuke!! They responded by withholding Baptism until after the Regeneration of the Believer was proved (thus demonstrating, by their sacramental practice, the distinction between Symbol and Grace), and breaking communion with all Hierarchical bishops (thus affirming, by their ecclesiological practice, the authority and independence of the local presbyters).
But in this, the AnaBaptists were hardly alone. In addition to a number of Non-Conformist paedobaptist congregations (of which the Culdee Presbyteries of Iona and Scotia were but one worthy example, deserving of an entirely separate post at another time), many of the Non-Conformist congregations commonly counted in later history as anabaptistic did continue the ancient and established practice of Infant Baptism amongst themselves, even as they refused communion with Rome. As merely one example, the medieval communion of the Waldensians, dating reliably back to the eleventh and twelfth century and likely before, did commonly practice the baptism of Infants though not according to the Roman practice in a great number of their congregations, and perhaps even as a majority practice:
While rejecting the various ritualistic additions to baptism, these disciples of Peter Waldo did not repudiate the validity of baptisms as such -- not even when performed in the Church of Rome. Indeed, when unable to avail themselves of the rather scarce services of their own mostly itinerant pastors -- some of them very questionably permitted their own children, rather than to remain unbaptized, to be baptized even by Romish priests. Still others, with reluctance, even delayed those baptisms (because not necessary for salvation) -- until their own Waldensian pastors were later available and able to officiate.
For "the Waldenses," as Rev. Prof. Dr. Samuel Miller rightly pointed out in his work Infant Baptism, "in their Confessions of Faith and other writings drawn up between the twelfth and sixteenth centuries...for several hundred years before the Reformation...have indeed written on the subject." However, the evidence leads to only one conclusion: "The great body of the Waldenses, were Paedobaptists."
Miller then cited from Waldensian historians themselves: "'Baptism,' say they, 'is administered in a full congregation of the faithful, to the end that he who is received into the church may be reputed and held by all as a Christian brother.... We present our children in baptism.... The things which are not necessary in baptism, are -- the exorcisms; the breathings; the sign of the cross upon the head or forehead of the infant'" and/or the adult. -- The Anabaptists and their Stepchildren - F.N. Lee
You may rest assured, my friends, that this statement most exactly illustrates the real fact with regard to the Waldenses as Paedobaptists. Twentynine parts, at least, out of thirty, of the whole of that body of witnesses for the truth, were undoubtedly Paedobaptists. The remaining thirtieth part departed from the faith of their fathers in regard to baptism, but departed on principles altogether unlike those of our modem Baptist brethren. -- INFANT BAPTISM, by Samuel Miller, D.D.
Nonetheless, while the AnaBaptistic reaction against the twin Roman heresies of Baptismal Regeneration and Establishmentarianism were understandable, and largely justifiable, renunciations of the errors and heresies of Roman doctrine, this does NOT establish AnaBaptistic sacramental practice as the original Covenantal practice of the early Jewish Church.
So the Reformers declared:
The Covenant is Visible and One.
Which is entirely irrelevant to the point.
The Sign of Baptism is NOT a sacrament intended for an atomistic, individual celebration of ones self, any more than was circumcision. It is the sacrament by which the Church declares that it is staking its Covenantal Claim upon a soul whom the Church has Biblical reason to believe has been set apart unto God.
And if the sheep belong to our King, so do the lambs.
If you were baptized as an infant, then you are Christian because your parents decided for you. I find it rather humorous that so many Arminians are perfectly happy to hate and oppose predestination by God but rally quickly to defend the principle of predestination by parents via infant baptism.
What is difficult (if not humorous), rather, is imagining that Almighty God, who instituted the Covenant of the Family, did not from all Eternity providentially foreordain to include the advantages of Covenantal familial relations in His predestined plan to efficaciously draw His Elect unto Himself.
How shall they hear, without a preacher? And what better Preacher could God have predestined to be the earthly instrument of an Elect childs salvation, than a Christian Fathers example, or a Christian Mothers love?
Ah, but Scripture declares that Almighty God has included the advantages of Covenantal familial relations in His predestined plan to efficaciously draw His Elect unto Himself.. His Predestination is not only Direct and Individual unto the salvation of Elect adults, but also Providential and Covenantal unto the Salvation of Elect children.
Acts 2: 39 -- For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.
It's laughable, comparable to getting your child a membership card for the Republican Party when he's a month old and then saying he's a Republican. Or pretending that your child is a supporter of the Social Security system because you get her a S.S. card.
Or perhaps, no more laughable than treating a child of the Republic as a Citizen unless and until they prove themselves a traitor to the Republic. Wisdom enshrined in our own Constitution.
The Covenant is Visible and One.