01.002. New Testament Example and Precept
New Testament Example and Precept.
"When they believed Philip preaching good tidings concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women."-- Acts 8:12.
"It must be at once admitted that the New Testament contains no clear proof that infants were baptized in the days of the Apostles."--J. A. Beet, D.D. (Methodist, formerly Professor of Systematic Theology in the Richmond Theological College, England). In times such as the present, when advocates of infant baptism are bestirring themselves to defend their cause, this question must be in the minds of many, Why is their zealous and labored defense so necessary? We do not hear of numbers of people ceasing to believe in the validity of the immersion of believers as we do hear of defections from the ranks of those who believe in sprinkling water upon infants. Why do so many people leave their old position and as believers receive baptism? The answer is found in a significant difference in the authority for the respective positions. The advocate of believers’ baptism has as his warrant the plain statement and example of the Lord and his apostles. The pleader for infant baptism has neither of these. See the difference in example. There are clear Bible instances of the baptism of believers. Three thousand who "gladly received the word" were baptized (Acts 2:11); the Samaritans, "when they believed Philip preaching good tidings concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ," "were baptized, both men and women" (Acts 8:12); the eunuch, instructed in the things of the Lord, was baptized (Acts 8:35-38); "many of the Corinthians hearing, believed, and were baptized" (Acts 18:8). What about the Pedobaptists? They cannot produce a solitary text of Scripture which states the baptism of an infant. That is wily men leave their ranks and submit to that for which there is explicit warrant of God.
Look also at the difference in command. Is there a command for the baptism of a believer? Yes. Mr. Madsen challenges our right to use the commission in this connection--the commission in which the apostles were instructed to make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them (Matthew 28:19), in which it is said that "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16:16). So we do not press this now, but will examine it later. We have the following definite cases besides. People who were pricked in their heart, believing they had crucified the Messiah, were commanded to "repent and be baptized" (Acts 2:38). Gentiles on whom the Spirit had come, people speaking with tongues and magnifying God (who were therefore not unconscious infants) were "commanded" to be baptized (Acts 10:44-48). Saul, a penitent believer, was commanded, by a special messenger from God, "Arise and be baptized" (Acts 22:16). What of the Pedobaptists? If he will produce one such command regarding an infant, the controversy will end. But there is not one such command for this thing, said to be done in the name of the Lord. Many, accordingly, are ceasing to be Pedobaptists.
It is only fair to notice here that Mr. Madsen challenges our right to argue from the example of Cornelius and his company (Acts 10:1-48). He says: "But, if as the Baptists appear to contend by citing the proof passage relating to Cornelius and Peter, only believers who have received the Holy Ghost are proper subjects of baptism, then the commission imposes an impossible obligation. To make such believers is beyond even the ability of apostles". (The Question of Baptism, p. 15; cf. p. 69). Regarding the reception by Cornelius and the others of the Holy Spirit before baptism, we are quite, content to take Mr. Madsen’s words: "It is manifestly all exception, and was Divinely intended to surprise Peter, and change his mental attitude towards the Gentile world" (p. 69), or Dummelow’s explanation--"a miraculous assurance that the Gentiles were not to be excluded from the gift of the Holy Spirit, but were to be baptized." But why, pray, may we not quote Acts 10:44-48 as a proof of the baptism of believers? It would be a little grotesque to quote it is a warrant for the baptism of infants who do not and cannot believe; for they are not "all here present in the sight of God, to hear all things that have been commanded" (Acts 10:33), nor do they "speak with tongues and magnify God" (Acts 10:46). Does our use of the instance make us "appear to contend" that "only believers who have received the Holy Ghost are proper subjects"? Mr. Madsen’s own reference to "an exception" saves us from such appearance. Again, it is not only those who reject infant baptism who quote Acts 10:44-48 as a warrant for believers’ baptism. Pedobaptists agree that the baptism of believers is right, and they often quote Acts 10:47 in proof. For instance, Bannerman in his Difficulties about Baptism, prepared at the request of the Publications Committee of the Free Church of Scotland,--a book to which Mr. Madsen refers and from which he quotes,--says:-- "Suppose a minister of our own Church, or of any other of the Churches which believe in Infant Baptism, in the position of Peter with Cornelius, or of Philip with the Eunuch, or of Paul with Lydia and the jailer of Philippi; he would act precisely in the same way as the apostles and the evangelist did. He would baptize each and all of these four persons as believers." So also T. Withrow, who was a Professor of Church History in Londonderry, in his Scriptural Baptism wrote: "Every instance recorded in Scripture of faith being required in order to baptism, is a case where we would require faith in order to baptism. The 3000 at Pentecost (Acts 2:40, Saul of Tarsus (Acts 9:18), and the disciples at Ephesus (Acts 19:5), were, up to that period, Jews, who, on entering into the Christian Church, were baptized, after making a profession of faith, but who would not have received the ordinance from us on any other terms. The same condition, previous to baptism, we would have demanded from the Eunuch (Acts 8:35), from Cornelius and his friends (Acts 10:47), and from Lydia (Acts 16:15). "Now, if it were right for these Pedobaptists controversialists to quote the case of Cornelius as a warrant for their occasional practice of baptizing believers, why should it be wrong for us? If their argument is not vitiated because they "appear to contend" that "only believers who have received the Holy Ghost are proper subjects for baptism," why should ours be? The above is but one instance of a fairly general contradiction in Pedobaptists arguments. We shall notice it chiefly when we deal with the Scriptures alleged to be in favor of infant baptism: "Almost every part of Holy Writ adduced by any Pedobaptist in favor of infant sprinkling is acknowledged by some Pedobaptist or other to contain no proof, no valid argument, in favor of the hypothesis." And so with their other lines of proof. When attacked from one quarter, we could move aside and confidently let another Pedobaptists meet and answer the former antagonist.
SOME STRIKING ADMISSIONS.
We have very many acknowledgements, on the part of believers in infant baptism, of the lack of Bible precedent or instruction. We give a few citations by way of example:
"The N.T. contains no explicit reference to the baptism of infants or young children."--C. Anderson Scott, in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible.
"What is expressly commanded by Christ in regard to baptism is, that those who are made disciples by the preaching of the gospel should be baptized, i.e., those who had been heathens or unbelieving Jews, but had come to believe in Jesus. These only are referred to in Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:15-16; and in all the instances in which baptism is said to have been administered, it was to such persons."--James S. Candlish, D.D., Professor of Systematic Theology in the Free Church College, Glasgow, in The Christian Sacraments, in a paragraph headed "The express command insufficient."
"As baptism was closely united with a conscious entrance on Christian communion, faith and baptism were always connected with one another; and thus it is in the highest degree probable that baptism was performed only in instances where both could meet together, and that the practice of infant baptism was unknown at this period."--Neander, History of the Planting and Training of the Christian Church by the Apostles.
"It is impossible to shake off the impression of the fact that the New Testament contains no direct reference, whether historical or doctrinal, to the practice of infant baptism."--J. C. Lambert, B.D., in The Sacraments in the New Testament.
"True, the New Testament contains no express command to baptize infants; such a Command would not agree with the free spirit of the gospel. Nor was there any compulsory or general infant baptism before the union of church and State."--P. Schaff, Apostolic Christianity.
Some one may say that these quotations do not carry us far, since there may be no command or example in the Scripture for infant baptism and yet the practice be necessarily inferred from the Scriptures. We therefore direct attention to the following admissions: "Not only is there no mention of the baptism of infants, but there is no text from which such baptism can be securely inferred."--A. Plummer, M.A., D.D., Master of University College, Durham, in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. I.
"It is probable that all that is said in Scripture about baptism refers to the baptism of adults."--Ibid.
"We have all reason for not deriving infant baptism from apostolic institution, and the recognition of it which followed somewhat later, as an apostolical tradition, serves to confirm this hypothesis."--Neander’s Church History.
"Baptism was originally, of course, in the name of Jesus, and it was only administered to adults; all that has been read into the Acts of the Apostles about the baptism of children is pure fancy."--Dr. Willibald Beyschlag, Professor of Theology at Halle, in New Testament Theology; or Historical Account of the Teaching of Jesus and of Primitive Christianity according to the New Testament Sources.
"In the Apostolic age, and in the three centuries which followed, it is evident that, as a general rule, those who came to baptism came in full age, of their own deliberate choice. We find a few cases of the baptism of children; in the third century we find one case of the baptism of infants."--Dean Stanley, Christian Institutions.
"Men are not born Christians, but made Christians. This remark of Tertullian may have applied to the large majority even after the middle of the second century, but thereafter a companion feature arose in the shape of the natural extension of Christianity through parents to the children. Subsequently to that period the practice of infant baptism was also inaugurated; at least we are unable to get certain evidence for it at an earlier date." In a footnote is added: "Here, too, I am convinced that the saying holds true, Ab initio sic non eraf" (from the beginning it was not so).--Adolf Harnack, Professor of Church History in the University of Berlin, in The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries.
"There is not one word in the New Testament which even suggests in the slightest degree that spiritual blessings are, or may be, conveyed to an infant by a rite of which he is utterly unconscious. And the suggestion contradicts the broad principles underlying the kingdom of God."--J. Agar Beet in A Treatise on Christian Baptism (see also above).
We do not quote these men as if the matter can be settled by mere human testimony. Nor do we suggest that they are of the opinion that the practice of infant baptism is out of harmony with the principles of the New Testament. The concessions are all the more remarkable because they come from believers in infant baptism. This has to be borne in mind, and may keep some from being misled by the facetious irony of Mr. Madsen when he says: "The wonder is that the practice survives, when, as announced by the Baptists, the weight of scholarship repudiates it" (The Question of Baptism, p. 84). We unhesitatingly say that the weight of scholarship is against the view that sprinkling of water upon infants is baptism as warranted by New Testament command or example. The reason why "the practice survives" is that men are not content with that for which there is express warrant; they agree that believers’ baptism and immersion are warranted, but think that something else will do as well. We have a wholesome respect for scholarship, ancient or modern. We find, however, that what a man will say as a scholar and historian is one thing; what he will say as a theologian, and especially as a controversialist in extremis, is often quite a different thing. We wish modern practice to harmonize more with modern scholarship.
SCHOLARLY AUTHORITIES.
Under this heading, the author of The Question of Baptism seeks, by citation from men of undoubted scholarship, to answer those who "are never tired of objecting that infant baptism is not only repugnant to the sense of Scripture, but that it is opposed by modern scholarship." We have already quoted from a number of believers in infant baptism who admit that the practice is not inferable from Scripture. We may now notice three of Mr. Madsen’s "scholarly authorities." Here is a paragraph from page 85 of The Question of Baptism:
"Three scholars may be cited who certify on historic grounds to the propriety of infant baptism. (1) Prof. Gwatkin affirms: ’As regards infant baptism, there can be little doubt that it dates back to the Apostolic age.’ In thorough accord with Dorner, it is maintained, ’the principle of infant baptism (is) that even the infant of an hour belongs to Christ’ (Early Church History). (2) Prof. McGiffert lays it down as indisputable that the practice of baptizing infants was a ’common’ one before the end of the second century’ (History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age.) (3) Dr. Kurtz, reviewing the historical position, asserts that infant baptism was ’universally held to be proper. Tertullian alone opposed it.’ (Church History, Vol. IV.)"
We strongly recommend as many as possible to go to the public libraries and refer to the books whence these quotations are taken. If they will do so, they will learn of the straits to which the latest apologist for infant baptism is reduced, and also, incidentally, they will be led to ponder on the ethics of quotation. The paragraph quoted above must have been written in the fond belief that few or none would take the trouble to look up the references.
H. M. Gwatkin, Dixie Professor of Ecclesiastical History in the University of Cambridge, in his Early Church History to A.D. 313, 1909, Vol. I, on the same page in which he says that "there can be little doubt that it dates back to the apostolic age," continues: "On the other hand, we have decisive evidence that infant baptism is no direct institution either of the Lord himself or of his apostles. There is no trace of it in the New Testament. Every discussion of the subject presumes persons old enough to have faith and repentance, and no case of baptism is recorded except of such persons" (pp. 249, 250). In the light of this, what becomes of the fairness of the use to which Gwatkin’s name is put in the paragraph in question?
Notice again the context in which Gwatkin refers to "the infant of an hour." He says:
"Even in the fourth century some of the best women of the time, like Anthusa and Monnica, did not feel bound to baptize their children in infancy; and a writer of no less unquestioned orthodoxy than Gregory of Nazianzus advises that it be put off till the child ’can frame to speak the mystical words.’ This is every way illogical, but at all events it gives up the principle of Infant Baptism, that even the infant of an hour belongs to Christ" (p. 250). The intelligent reader need only be asked to compare this with Mr. Madsen’s alleged quotation.
A. C. McGiffert, Professor of Church History in Union Theological Seminary, New York, is similarly treated in the paragraph in question. Since McGiffert wrote A History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age, would it not be well to quote what he says regarding the apostolic age? After all, we are more interested in the first century than we are in the second. McGiffert On the apostolic age was not quoted because he did not there support the Pedobaptists position. Read Madsen on McGiffert, in paragraph quoted above, then read McGiffert, who writes: "Whether infants were baptized in the apostolic age, we have no means of determining. Where the original idea of baptism as a baptism of repentance, or where Paul’s profound conception of it as a symbol Of the death and resurrection Of the believer with Christ prevailed, the practice would not be likely to arise. But where the rite was regarded as a mere sign of one’s reception into the Christian circle, it would be possible for the custom to grow up under the influence of the ancient idea of the family as a unit in religion as well as in other matters. Before the end of the second century, at any rate, the custom was common ’ but it did not become universal until a much later time" (p. 543).
Prof. McGiffert, it will be seen, holds that infant baptism would not be likely to grow up where Paul’s doctrine was accepted. Infant baptism, then, must have become more "common" as the apostolic doctrine was departed from. The statements in Kurtz’s Church History have also suffered at the hands of our author, who quotes but a part of a sentence, and who fails to inform us as to the period in which and the people by whom Kurtz says infant baptism was "universally held to be proper." As a fact, that period was the post-apostolic age. In that part of his history which deals with the "primitive church," Kurtz says: "Equally impossible is it strictly to demonstrate that infant baptism had been practiced by the apostles, although this is probable (Acts 2:39; Acts 16:33; 1 Corinthians 7:14)."
There is no universally proper custom suggested here. Of the following period, Kurtz writes: "The Fathers generally connected baptism and regeneration. Hence, in theory, the baptism of infants was generally recognized, although it was not universally introduced. Tertullian ’alone decidedly opposed it" (T. & T. Clark’s Edition, Vol. L, pp. 118, 119).
Controversialists, it will be perceived, will do strange things with their authorities. Scripture and human testimony alike need to be strained to get apparent warrant for the Pedobaptists practice.