02.1. CHAPTER 1. BAPTISTS REGARD THE BAPTISM OF UNCONSCIOUS INFANTS AS UNSCRIPTURAL, ...

CHAPTER 1. BAPTISTS REGARD THE BAPTISM OF UNCONSCIOUS INFANTS AS UNSCRIPTURAL, AND INSIST ON THE BAPTISM OF BELIEVERS IN CHRIST; AND OF BELIEVERS ALONE.

BEFORE showing wherein Baptists differ from other Christian denominations, it may be well for me to say that in many things there is substantial agreement. As to the inspiration, and the consequent infallibility, of the word of God, there is no difference of opinion. The Bible is recognized as the supreme standard of faith and practice that is to say, it teaches us what to believe and what to do.

Salvation by grace is a doctrine which commands the cordial assent of all Christians. While “sin reigns unto death,” they rejoice that “grace reigns through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.” They expect through endless ages to ascribe their salvation to the sovereign grace of God.

Justification by faith in Christ is a fundamental article of belief among all Christians. Acceptance with God on the ground of their works they know to be impossible, and they give the Lord Jesus the trustful reception which the gospel claims for him, and of which his person, character, and mediatorial work render him infinitely worthy. Christ is the object of their faith.

Regeneration by the Holy Spirit is a Christian doctrine. To be “born of the Spirit” is an essential part of salvation; for the subjects of this second birth become the children of God and heirs of heaven. They “put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.” With regard to these and kindred topics Baptists are in accord with other evangelical Christians; but there are points of difference. On these points Baptists hold views which distinguish them from Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Congregationalists, Lutherans, Methodists. These views they deem so important as to justify their denominational existence; and because they hold these views they are a people “everywhere spoken against.” If, however, the distinctive principles of Baptists have their foundation in the word of God, they should be not only earnestly espoused, but maintained with unswerving fidelity. No truth taught in the Scriptures can be considered unimportant while the words of Jesus are remembered: “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:19); “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:20).

SECTION I. The account given of John’s baptism and of the personal
ministry of Christ affords no justification of infant baptism. In Matthew 3:1-17 it is thus written: “In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, and saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins. But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: and think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.” From these verses we learn that John preached repentance; that those whom he baptized confessed their sins; and that descent from Abraham was not a qualification for baptism. There is nothing in the narrative that can suggest the idea of the baptism of impenitent adults or of unconscious infants. This is equally true of the account of John’s ministry a given by the other three evangelists.

Paul, in explaining John’s baptism, says, “John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus” (Acts 19:4). Here it is plain that John required in those he baptized repentance and faith. They were not only to repent, but to believe in the coming Christ, for whom it was John’s mission to “prepare a people.” There is not the remotest allusion to the baptism of any who either did not or could not repent and believe in Christ. Baptists, so far as the subjects of baptism are concerned, certainly imitate closely the example of John the Baptist. The disciples of Christ baptized no infants during his ministry. The only reference we have to the baptisms administered by them before the Redeemer’s death and resurrection is in John 3:26; John 4:1-2, as follows: “And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, lie that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou bearest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him;” “When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples.” From the words quoted from the third chapter it would be thought that Jesus baptized personally; but we have an explanation of the matter in the language of the fourth chapter. Baptism was not administered by the Saviour; but, as his apostles acted under his authority, he is represented as doing what they did by his direction. The fact, however, which deserves special notice is “that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John.” There is a distinction between making and baptizing disciples. First in order was the process of discipleship to Christ, and then baptism as a recognition of discipleship. Could unconscious infants be made disciples? Manifestly not. Then, according to this passage, they were not eligible to baptism; for the inference is irresistible that none were baptized who had not first been made disciples. The oft-repeated verse, “Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven,” does not justify infant baptism. For what purpose were these children taken to Christ? That he should baptize them? Evidently not; for he did not baptize. Were they taken to him that his disciples might baptize them? If so, it is marvellous that the disciples rebuked those who had charge of them. The preceding verse shows why these children were taken to Christ: “Then were brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them and pray: and the disciples rebuked them” (Matthew 19:13). There was a specific object in view. It was not that the “little children” might be baptized, but that the Saviour might put his hands on them and pray. Who has the right to infer that these children were baptized, or that baptism was mentioned in their presence? The sacred narrative is silent on the subject; and it may be said with positive certainty that the New Testament, from the birth of John the Baptist to the death of Christ, says nothing concerning infant baptism. If, however, Pedobaptists should admit this, they would still insist many of them, at least that there is authority for their practice bearing date subsequent to the Redeemer’s death and resurrection. We shall see whether there is such authority.

SECTION II. The Commission given by the Saviour to his apostles just before
his ascension to heaven furnishes no plea for infant baptism. The circumstances connected with the giving of this Commission were replete with interest. The Lord Jesus had finished the work which he came down from heaven to accomplish. He had offered himself a sacrifice for sin. He had exhausted the cup of atoning sorrow. He had lain in the dark mansions of the grave. He had risen in triumph from the dead, and was about to ascend to the right hand of the Majesty on high. Invested with perfect mediatorial authority, he said to his apostles, “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” Mark records the same Commission thus: “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Luke’s record is this: “Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day; and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem” (Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16; Luke 24:46-47).

Surely the language of this Commission is plain. Matthew informs us that teaching or making disciples; for the Greek verb means “to disciple” or “to make disciples “is to precede baptism, Mark establishes the priority of faith to baptism, and Luke connects repentance and remission of sins with the execution of the Commission. No man can, in obedience to this Commission, baptize either an unbeliever or an infant. The unbeliever is not a penitent disciple, and it is impossible for an infant to repent and believe the gospel.

It may be laid down as a principle of common sense which commends itself to every unprejudiced mind that a commission to do a thing or things authorizes only the doing of the thing or things specified in it. The doing of all other things is virtually forbidden. There is a maxim of law: Expressio unius est excluslo alterius. [Note: “The expression of one thing is the exclusion of another.”] It must be so; for otherwise there could be no definiteness in contracts between men, and no precision in either the enactments of legislative bodies or in the decrees of courts of justice. This maxim may be illustrated in a thousand ways. Numerous scriptural illustrations are at hand; I will name a few. God commanded Noah to build an ark of gopher-wood. He assigns no reason why gopher-wood should be used. The command, however, is positive, and it forbids the use of any other kind of wood for that purpose. Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac for a burnt-offering. He was virtually forbidden to offer any other member of his family. Ay, more, he could not offer an animal till the original order was revoked by him who gave it, and a second order was given requiring the sacrifice of a ram in the place of Isaac. The institution of the passover furnishes a striking illustration, or rather a series of illustrations. A lamb was to be killed not a heifer; it was to be of the first year not of the second or third; a male not a female; without blemish not with blemish; on the fourteenth day of the month not on some other day; the blood to be applied to the door-posts and lintels not elsewhere. These illustrations are all scriptural, but I may refer also to the Constitution of the United States. It says of the President: “He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the senators present concur.” This language in effect forbids the making of a treaty by the President alone, or by the President and the House of Representatives in Congress, or by the President and the Supreme Court. It pronounces invalid a treaty made by the President and a majority of “senators present,” for there must be “two-thirds.” The Constitution declares that the House of Representatives “shall have the sole power of impeachment,” and the Senate “shall have the sole power to try all impeachments.” Here the Senate is as effectually inhibited from the “power of impeachment” as is the House of Representatives from the power of trying “impeachments.” Neither the President, the Supreme Court, nor the Senate can impeach, but the House of Representatives alone. The President, the Supreme Court, and the House of Representatives combined cannot “try impeachments,” but the Senate alone. In application of the principle laid down and of the law-maxim illustrated, I affirm that the Commission of Christ to the apostles, in requiring them to baptize disciples believers forbids, in effect, the baptism of all others. It will not do to say that we are not forbidden in so many words to baptize infants. The same may be said of unbelievers, and even of horses and sheep and bells. This examination of the Commission fully authorizes me to say that it furnishes no plea for infant baptism. But it will be said for it has been said a thousand times that if infants are not to be baptized because they cannot believe, they cannot, for the same reason, be saved. If the salvation of infants depends on their faith, they cannot be saved. They are incapable of faith. They are doubtless saved through the mediation of Jesus Christ, but it is not by faith. The opponents of Baptists signally fail to accomplish their purpose in urging this objection to our views. They intend to make us concede the propriety of infant baptism or force us to a denial of infant salvation. But we make neither the concession nor the denial. As soon as we say that infants are not saved by faith, but without faith, their objection is met and demolished.

SECTION III There is no instance of infant baptism on the day of Pentecost,
nor in Samaria under the preaching of Philip. The day of Pentecost was a memorable day. Forty days after his resurrection Jesus had ascended to heaven. Before his ascension, however, he gave his apostles express command to tarry at Jerusalem till endued with power from on high. This power was received, in connection with their baptism in the Holy Spirit, on the day of Pentecost. They were copiously imbued with the Spirit placed more fully under his influence than ever before. All things whatsoever Jesus had said to them were brought to their remembrance. They were required for the first time to show their understanding of the Commission of their ascended Lord. How did they understand it? How did they execute it? First, the gospel was preached. Peter in his great sermon proved Jesus to be the Christ, and derived his proof from the Old Testament Scriptures. Then he charged his hearers with the crime of crucifying the Lord of glory. The people were pierced to the heart, and said, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” It was an important question, asked for the first time after the apostles received their worldwide Commission. The answer is in these words: “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 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” (Acts 2:38-39). No one says that the command “Repent” is applicable to infants, and it is certain that the injunction “Be baptized” has no reference to them; for it is as clear as the sun in heaven that the same persons are commanded to repent and be baptized. Then too it ought to be remembered that it would not be rational to address a command to unconscious infants. It is supposed by some, however, that the words “the promise is to you and to your children” refer to infants. The term “children,” however, evidently means “posterity;” and the promise cannot be divested of its relation to the Holy Spirit. This promise was not only to the Jews and their posterity, but to Gentiles. The latter are referred to in the words “to all that are afar off.” This restriction is laid upon the promise “Even as many as the Lord our God shall call.” Whether the word “call” is used in its general sense, as in Proverbs 8:4, “Unto you, O men, I call,” or in its special sense, as in 1 Corinthians 1:24, “But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks,” it is in either case inapplicable to infants. Did any obey Peter’s command “Be baptized”? It is written, “Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls” (Acts 2:41). The baptism was limited to those who gladly received Peter’s word; and, as infants were not of that number, to infer that they were baptized is utterly gratuitous. There is nothing in the Pentecostal administration of baptism which intimates that infants were considered proper subjects of the ordinance. Let it not be forgotten that the converts on the day of Pentecost were the first persons baptized under the Apostolic Commission, and therefore we have in their baptism the first practical exposition of its true meaning.

There is nothing like infant baptism in the account given of Philip’s labors in Samaria. The reader can examine for himself the eighth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. There it will be seen that Philip began to execute the Commission by preaching: he “preached Christ unto them.” He doubtless remembered the words of the risen Redeemer: “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” The Samaritans “believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ;” and what then? It is said, “They were baptized, both men and women.” Here the Commission of Christ was practically expounded. Is there anything in the exposition which can suggest the idea of “infant dedication to God in baptism”? Surely not. Philip’s plan of operation was evidently uniform. Hence, when he fell in with the Ethiopian eunuch as we learn from the latter part of the same chapter he first “preached unto him Jesus.” The eunuch professed faith in the Messiah. Then Philip baptized him. As “faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:17), there must be preaching before faith, and there must be faith before baptism, because this is the order established by Christ in the Great Commission. Alas for those who invert this order!

SECTION IV. The argument from household baptisms in favor of infant baptism is invalid.

I will refer to these baptisms as they are recorded in the Scriptures. In Acts 10:1-48 there is an account of Peter’s visit to Cornelius. He began at Caesarea to preach to Gentiles as he had before preached to Jews. He carried into effect the Great Commission in precisely the same way. The Holy Spirit accompanied the word preached, and Gentile believers for the first time “spoke with tongues and magnified God.” Then said Peter, “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.” Here was a household baptism, but there are things said of the subjects of this baptism, that could not be true of speechless infants. One fact, however, settles the whole matter. In the second verse of the chapter it is said that Cornelius “feared God with all his house.” Can infants fear God? The baptism of Lydia and her household at Philippi is next in order. The narrative, as given in Acts 16:13-15, is as follows: “And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither. And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and abide there. And she constrained us.” No one denies that Lydia was a believer; she was therefore a proper subject of baptism. But it is inferred by Pedobaptists that, as her household was baptized, infants must have been baptized. This does not follow, for the very good reason that there are many households in which there are no infants. The probability and it amounts almost to a certainty is that Lydia had neither husband nor children. She was engaged in secular business was “a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira,” which was a considerable distance from Philippi. If she had a husband and infant children, is it not reasonable to suppose that her husband would have taken on himself the business in which she was engaged, letting her remain at home with the infant children? She evidently had no husband with her; for we cannot believe that she violated conjugal propriety so far as to reduce her husband to a cipher by saying “my house.” Nor can we believe that the sacred historian would have spoken of “the house of Lydia” in Acts 16:40, if she had a husband. The most reasonable inference is that her household consisted of persons in her employ, that they as well as Lydia became Christian converts, and that they were the “brethren” whom Paul and Silas “comforted” when, having been released from prison, they “entered into the house of Lydia.” Enough has been said to invalidate Pedobaptist objections to the Baptist explanation of this narrative, and nothing more can be required. Pedobaptists affirm that Lydia had infant children. Their argument rests for its basis on this view. On them devolves the burden of proof. They must prove that she had infant children. This they have never done this they can never do. The narrative therefore furnishes no argument in favor of infant baptism. The same chapter (Acts 16:1-40) contains an account of the baptism of the jailer and his household. Here it is necessary to say but little; for everyone can see that there were no infants in the jailer’s family. Paul and Silas “spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house” It is also said that the jailer rejoiced, “believing in God with all his house.” Surely the word of the Lord was not spoken to infants; surely infants are incapable of believing. It is worthy of notice that this record shows how Paul understood the Commission of Christ. He first spoke the word of the Lord, and when that word was believed, but not till then, was there an administration of baptism.

It is only necessary to refer to the household of Crispus (Acts 18:8) to show what has just been shown namely, that a man’s house as well as himself may believe on the Lord. It is not said in so many words that the family of Crispus was baptized, but it is said that he “believed on the Lord with all his house.” No doubt the family was baptized, but faith in Christ preceded the baptism. In 1 Corinthians 1:16, Paul says, “And I baptized also the household of Stephanas.” Will anyone infer that there were infants in this family? This inference cannot be drawn, in view of what the same apostle says in the same Epistle (1 Corinthians 16:15): “Ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the first-fruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints.” Infants could not addict themselves to the ministry of the saints. It follows that there were no infants in the family of Stephanas. I am aware that to invalidate this conclusion an argument from chronology has been used. It has been urged that, although infants were baptized in the family of Stephanas when Paul planted the church at Corinth, sufficient time elapsed between their baptism and the date of Paul’s First Epistle to the church to justify the declaration, “They have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints.” This argument avails nothing in view of the fact that the most liberal chronology allows only a few years to have intervened between the planting of the church and the date of the Epistle.

Reference has now been made to all the household baptisms mentioned in the New Testament, and there is no proof that there was an infant in any of them. On the other hand, facts and circumstances are related which render it a moral certainty that there were no infants in those baptized families. It will not do to say that ordinarily there are infants in households; it must be shown that it is universal in the case. Then the household argument will avail Pedobaptists not till then. But it cannot be said of all households that there are infants in them. Many a Baptist minister in the United States has baptized more households than are referred to in the New Testament, and no infants in them. It is said that more than thirty entire household baptisms have occurred in connection with American Baptist missionary operations among the Karens in Burraah. In view of such considerations as have now been presented, the reasonings of Pedobaptists from household baptisms are utterly inconclusive. They cannot satisfy a logical mind.

SECTION V.

Certain passages in the New Testament supposed by some
Pedobaptists to refer to infant baptism shown to have no such reference.

Conspicuous among these passages is what Paul says in Romans 11 : of the “good olive tree” and of the “wild olive tree.” It is assumed that by the “good olive tree” is meant the “Jewish church-state.” This assumption requires another namely, that the “wild olive tree” denotes a Gentile church-state; but from the latter view the most earnest Pedobaptist recoils. The truth is there is no reference by the apostle to any “church-state,” whether among Jews or Gentiles. Paul teaches in substance what we learn from other parts of the New Testament that the Jews enjoyed great privileges, which they abused; in consequence of which abuse, the privileges were taken from them and given to the Gentiles. This is the teaching of Christ; for he said to the Jews, “The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof” (Matthew 21:43).

Why this, kingdom was taken from the Jews we may learn from John 1:11 : “He came unto his own, and his own received him not.” They rejected the Messiah who came in fulfilment of their own prophecies, and thus they surrendered the vantage-ground which they had occupied for centuries; and the blessings of the gospel which they refused to accept were offered to, and accepted by, the Gentiles. In this way what Paul elsewhere calls “the blessing of Abraham” was seen to “come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ” (Galatians 3:14). The promise of the Spirit was received through faith; for it was by faith that the Gentiles were brought into union with Christ. We see, therefore, the force of Paul’s language addressed to a Gentile believer in Romans 11:19-20 : “Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off that I might be graffed in. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith.” The reference to faith shows that there is no allusion to infants, who cannot believe. So it appears that the imagery of “the olive tree” affords neither aid nor comfort to the cause of infant baptism.

Pedobaptists appeal with great confidence to 1 Corinthians 7:14 in support of their views. The words are these: “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.” It will be seen on examination that there is not in this language the remotest reference to infant baptism. What are the facts in the case? Simply these: The question was agitated at Corinth whether believing husbands and wives should not separate themselves from their unbelieving partners. The idea was entertained by some, at least that an unbeliever was “unclean” to a believer, even as, under the Mosaic dispensation, a Gentile was “unclean” to a Jew, Paul corrects this false impression by showing that the unbelieving husband is sanctified or, rather, has been sanctified by the wife. The perfect tense is used a fact ignored by Drs. Conant and Davidson in their revisions, but fully recognized by Dr. Noyes. Without entering into a critical discussion of the word “sanctified,” I avail myself of the fact that the sanctification was such as to justify the continuance of the marriage-relation between the believing and the unbelieving partner: “else” that is, if the sanctification did not remove the supposed “uncleanness” from unbelieving parents “were your children unclean, but now are they holy.” As the verb translated “were” is in the present tense, it should be rendered “are:” “else your children are unclean, but now are they holy.” The pronoun “your” deserves special notice. The apostle does not say their children that is, the children of the believing and the unbelieving partner but your children, the children of the parents who were members of the Corinthian church. It follows that the passage under review is intensely strong against infant baptism. It shows that the children of the members of the church sustained the same relation to the church that unbelieving husbands and wives did, and that if believing husbands and wives abandoned their unbelieving partners, then believing parents might, with the same propriety, separate themselves from their children.

Perhaps the exposition of this passage given by a well-known Pedobaptist will be more satisfactory than mine. Rev. Albert Barnes says: “There is not one word about baptism here; not one allusion to it; nor does the argument in the remotest degree bear upon it. The question was not whether children should be baptized, but it was whether there should be a separation between man and wife where the one was a Christian and the other not. Paul states that if such a separation should take place, it would imply that the marriage was improper; and of course the children must be regarded as unclean.” [Note: Barnes’s Notes on First Corinthians, p. 133.]

Thus it appears that this passage so often made the basis of Pedobaptist argument affords no support to the theory or the practice of infant baptism.

SECTION VI. The allusions to baptism in the Apostolio Epistles
forbid the supposition that infants were baptized.

Paul refers to the baptized as “dead to sin,” or, rather, as having” died to sin.” He asks, “How shall we, that are dead to sin [that died, to sin], live any longer therein? Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?” (Romans 6:2-3). What is meant by dying to sin cannot be exemplified in unconscious infants. In 1 Corinthians 15:29 we have these words: “Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?” The controverted phrase “baptized for the dead,” occurring, as it does, in the midst of an argument on the resurrection, most probably means “baptized in the belief of the resurrection.” Such a belief cannot be predicated of infants. In Galatians 3:27 it is written, “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” These words cannot apply to infants, because they are incapable of putting on Christ. In Colossians 2:12 the record is, “Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.” However true and consoling may be the doctrine of infant salvation, it is not true that infants are risen with Christ “through the faith of the operation of God.” If, in 1 Timothy 6:12, the language, “hast professed a good profession before many witnesses,” refers to the baptismal profession, it is evident that such a profession cannot be made by those in a state of infancy. Dr. Davidson translates “didst confess the good confession before many witnesses,” which is strictly literal, for the Greek verb refers to past time. In Hebrews 10:22 we find the expression “our bodies washed with pure water.” If there is in these words an allusion to baptism (and I think there is), it is plain that the same persons who were baptized had been set free from “an evil conscience.” No infant has “an evil conscience.”

Peter, in his First Epistle (1 Peter 3:21), defines baptism to be “the answer of a good conscience toward God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” This is a general definition, and it forbids the idea that baptism, in apostolic times, was administered to any but accountable agents. What conscience has an infant? There is no operation of conscience before accountability. Baptism, then, in its administration to infants, cannot be what Peter says it is. This is for Pedobaptists an unfortunate fact a fact which shows their practice to be unscriptural.

There is in this connection another thing worthy of consideration. Paul, in his Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians, exhorts children to obey their parents. It is generally supposed that about five years intervened between the introduction of the gospel into Ephesus and Colosse and the writing of Paul’s Epistles. Now, if those children, or any of them, had been baptized when the gospel was introduced into these cities, is it not strange that the apostle, in urging upon them obedience, presented no motive derived from their dedication to God in baptism? There is no allusion to any “vows, promises, and obligations” made and assumed for them by their parents or sponsors at their baptism. There is nothing said that bears a resemblance to a personal acceptance of a draft drawn upon them in anticipation of their intelligence and responsibility. Here a query may be presented: Would a Pedobaptist apostle have pursued this course? To bring the matter nearer home: Would a Pedobaptist missionary write a letter to a Pedobaptist church, making special mention of parents and children, urging both to a faithful performance of relative duties, and say nothing about the obligations of either parents or children as connected with infant baptism or growing out of it? No one will answer this question affirmatively. The apostle of the Gentiles, therefore, did what we cannot reasonably imagine a Pedobaptist missionary or minister to do. This is a very suggestive fact.

I have now noticed the usual arguments supposed to be furnished by the New Testament in favor of infant baptism. Not one has been intentionally omitted. Is there precept or example to justify it? Celebrated Pedobaptist authors shall answer this question. Dr. Wall of the Church of England, in his History of Infant Baptism, on the very first page of his “Preface,” says that, “among all the persons that are recorded as baptized by the apostles, there is no express mention of any infant.” Neander of Germany the first church historian of his generation referring to “the latter part of the apostolic age,” expresses himself thus: “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. We cannot infer the existence of infant baptism from the instance of the baptism of whole families, for the passage in 1 Corinthians 16:15 shows the fallacy of such a conclusion, as from that it appears that the whole family of Stephanas, who were baptized by Paul, consisted of adults.” [Note: Planting and Training of the Church, pp. 101, 102] Professor Moses Stuart, for many years the glory of the Andover Theological Seminary, in his Essay on Baptism (p. 101), says, in his reference to infant baptism, “Commands or plain and certain examples, in the New Testament, relative to it, I do not find. Nor, with my views of it, do I need them.” Dr. Woods, long a colleague of Professor Stuart, in his Lectures on Infant Baptism, remarks as follows: “It is a plain case that there is no express precept respecting infant baptism in our sacred writings. The proof, then, that infant baptism is a divine institution must be made out in another way.” These are important concessions, made by men whose celebrity is coextensive with Christendom.

Now, if the New Testament does not sustain the cause of infant baptism, ought it not to be given up? If, as the Westminster Confession affirms, “baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,” it is self-evident that we should go to the New Testament to learn who are proper subjects of baptism. If it was ordained by Jesus Christ, we should allow him to decide who are to be baptized, and not refer the matter to either Abraham or Moses. But Pedobaptists, unable to prove infant baptism from the New Testament, go to the Old, and try to sustain it by reasoning, analogy, inference. Was there ever before such a course adopted to establish a divine ordinance? Ask a Jew why his ancestors for so many centuries observed the feasts of the Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles, and he will tell you that God commanded them to do so. Ask a Christian why believers should be baptized and partake of the Lord’s Supper, and his response will be that these are injunctions of Jesus Christ. Ask a Pedobaptist, however, why infants should be baptized, and he will at once plunge into the mazes of Judaism and argue the identity of the old “Jewish Church” and the gospel church, insisting, meanwhile, on the substitution of baptism for circumcision. This is a strange method of proving that infants ought to be baptized. It argues a consciousness of the utter absence of New Testament authority for infant baptism. It indicates that there is no command to baptize infants; for a command would supersede the necessity of argument to show the propriety of the practice. No man enters into an argument to prove that believers should be baptized. The positive injunction of Christ renders it superfluous. Strange as it is for Pedobaptists to go to the Old Testament for justification of one of their practices under the New Testament economy, yet, as they do so, it is necessary to follow them. This will now be done.

SECTION VII. The argument from the supposed identity of the Jewish
commonwealth and the gospel church of no force. This identity is assumed, and on it the propriety cf infant church-membership is thought to rest. I shall permit distinguished Pedobaptist writers representative men to speak for themselves. Dr. Hibbard, a very able Methodist author, in his work on Christian Baptism, says: “Our next proper position relates to the substantial oneness or identity of the Jewish and Christian churches. I say substantial oneness, because, although in many secondary and adventitious points they differ, still, in all the essential features if the real church of God, they are one and the same. And here it is proper to admonish the reader of the importance of this position. It is upon this ground that we rest the weight of the Bible argument for infant baptism” (pp. 31, 32). This language is plain and easily understood, though anyone familiar with the baptismal controversy will detect in the phrase “substantial oneness” an unwillingness to endorse the “identity” theory without qualification.

Dr. Samuel Miller, for many years Professor of Ecclesiastical History in Princeton Theological Seminary, in his Sermons on Baptism, expresses himself thus: “As the infant seed of the people of God are acknowledged on all hands to have been members of the church equally with their parents under the Old Testament Dispensation, so it is equally certain that the church of God is the same in substance now that it was then.” The italics are the Doctor’s. Here, also, is a disposition to recoil from a bold avowal of the doctrine of identity. “The same in substance” is the convenient phrase selected to meet the logical exigences that may possibly occur. Again, Dr. Miller says: “It is not more certain that a man arrived at mature age is the same individual that he was when an infant on his mother’s lap, than it is that the church, in the plentitude of her light and privileges after the coming of Christ, is the same church which many centuries before, though with a much smaller amount of light and privilege, yet; as we are expressly told in the New Testament (Acts 7:38), enjoyed the presence and guidance of her Divine Head in the wilderness.” [Note: Sermons on Baptism, pp. 18, 19.]

Dr. N. L. Rice, in his debate with the renowned Alexander Campbell at Lexington, Kentucky, remarks, “The church, then, is the same under the Jewish and Christian Dispensations the same into which God did, by positive law, put believers and their children” [Note: Debate, p. 285] Dr. Rice, it will be seen, is bolder than Drs. Hibbard and Miller. He says nothing about “substantial oneness,” “the same in substance;” but with characteristic fearlessness announces his position, and, in order to attract special attention, italicizes the words in which he expresses it. The venerable Dr. Charles Hodge, in his Theology, is as positive in his statements as is Dr. Rice. This will be seen in the following extracts: “The commonwealth cf Israel was the church. It is so called in Scripture (Acts 7:38);” “The church under the New Dispensation is identical with that under the Old. It is not a new church, but one and the same under the old economy, the church and state were identical. No man could be a member of the one without being a member of the other. Exclusion from the one was exclusion from the other. In the pure theocracy the high priest was the head of the state as well as the head of the church. The priests and Levites were civil as well as religious officers” (vol. 3, pp. 548, 549, 552, 553). As Dr. Hodge held these views, the thoughtful reader will wonder that he was not an advocate of a union between church and state under the gospel economy. That he was not resulted from a fortunate inconsistency on his part. The Pedobaptist view of the identity of the Jewish theocracy and the Christian Church is now before us as given by men of high position and distinction. Can this view be sustained? I shall attempt to show that it is utterly untenable. First, however, the term church must be defined. It means “a congregation,” “an assembly.” The Greeks used the term ekklesia (the word translated “church”) to signify an assembly, without regard to the purpose for which the assembly met. Hence the tumultuous concourse of the citizens of Ephesus referred to in Acts 19:32; Acts 19:41, is called in the original ekklesia, and is translated “assembly.” We have the same word in verse 39; but, as a defining epithet is prefixed to it, we read in the common version “lawful assembly.” The term ekklesia, therefore, while it denotes an assembly, does not, in its general signification, denote the kind of assembly. This being the case, the Jewish nation, or congregation, might with propriety be called ekklesia, or “church,” as in Acts 7:38. In the New Testament, however, the term ekklesia, in its application to the followers of Christ, generally refers to a particular local congregation of saints. I do not say that it has not a more extensive meaning, but this is its general meaning; and with this alone the present argument is concerned. The sacred writers speak of the churches of Judea, the churches of Macedonia, the churches of Asia, the churches of Galatia; and these churches were evidently composed of persons who had made credible profession of their faith in Christ. In apostolic times the members of a particular congregation were called “saints,” “believers,” “disciples,” “brethren.” They were separated from the world a spiritual people. Baptists say that in this sense of the term “church” there was no church before the Christian Dispensation. There were doubtless many pious persons from the days of Abel to the coming of Christ, but there was not a body of saints separate from the world. The Jewish nation was separate from other nations, but it was not a nation of saints. It was a kind of politico religious body, and circumcision was a mark of nationality. The righteous and the wicked belonged to this commonwealth and were entitled to its privileges. But there was no spiritual organization composed of regenerate persons, called out, separated, from the Jews as a people, till John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea. I have been thus particular in defining the term “church” that there may be no misapprehension of its meaning. Where the phrase “Jewish Church” is used it is to be understood as denoting as in Acts 7:38 the whole nation, and not a true spiritual body. But where the phrase “Christian Church” occurs it denotes a body of regenerate, spiritual believers in Christ.

I now proceed to show that the Jewish theocracy and the kingdom of God, or of heaven, as referred to in the New Testament, are not identical.

1. Because, when the Jewish theocracy had been in existence for centuries, the prophets predicted the establishment of a new kingdom. In Isaiah 2:2 it is written, “And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.” There is manifest reference here to the kingdom of God. It is not intimated that this kingdom had been established, but that it was to be established. The phrase “last days” means, no doubt, what it means in Hebrews 1:1-2 : “God, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son.” It designates the period of the Christian Dispensation. The prophecy of Daniel (Daniel 2:44) deserves special consideration. Having referred, in the interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, to the empires of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome, the prophet added, “And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever.” This kingdom was to be set up several centuries after Daniel prophesied. The phrase “set up” must indicate the establishment of a new kingdom; there is no intimation that the old Jewish kingdom was to be reorganized. This new kingdom was to stand forever. It was not to fall, like the worldly empires symbolized by the gold, silver, brass, and iron of Nebuchadnezzar’s image, but it was to be a permanent kingdom, maintaining an unbroken existence amid the lapse of ages and the revolutions of time. Who does not see that this kingdom has an inseparable connection with the church of Christ, of which he said, “The gates of hell shall not prevail against it”? (Matthew 16:18). The kingdom, the church; is to stand. Why? Because the machinations of Satan cannot overthrow it.

John the Baptist referred in his preaching to the new kingdom. His voice was heard in the wilderness of Judea, saying, “Repent ye; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matthew 3:2). Was it the old Jewish kingdom that was at hand? Certainly not. Jesus too, in the very beginning of his ministry, announced the same kingdom as “at hand.” He said, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel” (Mark 1:15). The time to which the prophets, Daniel especially, referred was fulfilled. The new kingdom was at hand. The command, therefore, was “Repent ye.” Such preaching had never before been heard. The injunction “Repent” was new, and the argument enforcing it was new. There was something so novel and so distinctive in the preaching of Christ and his harbinger as to indicate the introduction of a new era. That the preaching of John was the beginning of a new era is manifest from the Saviour’s words: “The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it” (Luke 16:16). In view of the considerations now presented, how can the Jewish theocracy and the gospel kingdom be the same? Is “the substantial oneness, or identity, of the Jewish and Christian churches” to use Dr. Hibbard’s words a possible thing? Yet he says, “It is upon this ground that we rest the weight of the Bible argument for infant baptism.” It rests, then, on a foundation of sand. Dr. Hibbard is in a dilemma. He may choose either horn of this dilemma, and it will gore him unmercifully. For if such a foundation can sustain the argument for infant baptism, there is no weight in the argument; but if the weight of the argument crushes the foundation, there is no solidity in the foundation.

2. Another fact fatal to the identity contended for is that those who were regular members of the old Jewish Church could not become members of the Christian Church without repentance, faith, regeneration, and baptism. The plain-ness of this proposition renders it needless to dwell upon it at any great length. A few considerations will sufficiently develop its truth. The inhabitants of Judea were, of course, members of the “Jewish Church.” I prefer the phrase “Jewish common wealth” or “Jewish theocracy,” because in our ordinary language the word “church” carries with it the Christian idea of a truly spiritual body; but through courtesy I say “Jewish Church,” as explained above. The Jews in Jerusalem and in the land of Judea were members of this church. John the Baptist called on these church-members to repent and do works meet for repentance and to believe on the coming Messiah as preparatory to baptism. He restricted the administration of baptism to those who repented and believed. The Pharisees and Sadducees two prominent sects among the Jews were church members. John spoke to them as a “generation of vipers.” The Pharisees had no adequate conception of the necessity of a proper state of heart, and the Sadducees were semi-infidels. They were no doubt recognized as worthy members of the Jewish Church, but they were utterly unfit for membership in a church of Christ. John let them know that their relationship to Abraham was no qualification for a place in the kingdom of heaven. Nicodemus was a Pharisee and an official member of this Jewish Church; yet he was ignorant of the doctrine of regeneration. Being “born again” was a mystery to him. He was an unregenerate man. The Saviour said to him, “Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again” (John 3:7). Nor did Jesus regard any of the Jews as qualified for baptism till they became his disciples. It is therefore said that he “made and baptized more disciples than John” (John 4:1). The scribes, lawyers, and doctors of the Jewish Church the Great Teacher denounced as hypocrites; “for,” he said, “ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in” (Matthew 23:13). This passage proves two things that the kingdom of heaven was then in existence, and that it was not identical with the Jewish kingdom. If it had not been in existence, it could not have been shut up. If it was identical with the Jewish kingdom, the scribes were already in it. But they were not in it; for the Saviour said, “.Ye neither go in yourselves” If, then, they were in the Jewish kingdom, and were not in the kingdom of heaven, the two kingdoms cannot be the same.

3. It deserves special notice that the covenant of the Jewish Church and the covenant of the Christian Church are different. The truth of this proposition Pedobaptists deny. They assume that “the covenant of grace,” or “gospel covenant,” was made with Abraham, and that the “covenant of circumcision” was so identified with it that circumcision became the seal of “the covenant of grace.”

Dr. Thomas O. Summers, now (1882) Professor of Theology in Vanderbilt University, in his volume on Baptism (p. 23), referring to infants, says: “They are specifically embraced in the gospel covenant. When that covenant was made with Abraham, his children were brought under its provisions, and the same seal that was administered to him was administered also to them, including both those that were born in his house and those that were bought with his money. They were all alike circumcised in token of their common interest in that covenant of which circumcision was the appointed symbol. That covenant is still in force.”

Dr. Hodge, as already quoted, not only says that “the church under the New Dispensation is identical with that under the Old” but adds, “It is founded on the same covenant the covenant made with Abraham.” Again he says: “Such being the nature of the covenant made with Abraham, it is plain that, so far as its main element is concerned, it is still in force. It is the covenant of grace, under which we now live, and upon which the church is now founded” (vol. 3, pp. 549, 550).

Here it is assumed by these two able writers, who worthily represent Methodists and Presbyterians, that the gospel covenant was made with Abraham, and that circumcision was its seal. Pedobaptists have a decided preference for the singular number. They do not say covenants: it is covenant in conversation, in books, and in sermons. Paul speaks of covenants, the two covenants, covenants of promise, etc. How “the covenant of circumcision” can be identified with “the covenant of grace,” or “gospel covenant,” defies ordinary comprehension. Placing myself in antagonism with Drs. Summers and Hodge, I am obliged to say that what the former calls the “gospel covenant” and the latter “the covenant of grace,” was not made with Abraham, They both quote Paul, but Paul does not say so. The language of the apostle is this: “And this I say, That the covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ [that is, in reference to the Messiah] the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect” (Galatians 3:17). This covenant was confirmed to Abraham, not made with him. It was made before. It must have had an existence, or it could not have been confirmed. The confirmation of anything implies its previous existence.

I shall not attempt to penetrate the counsels of eternity to ascertain the particulars of the origin of the covenant of grace. It is sufficient for my present purpose to say that it is, doubtless, the result of the sublime consultation of the three Persons in the Godhead concerning the prospective condemnation and ruin of the race of Adam. The first intimation of the existence of this covenant was .given in the memorable words, “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel” (Genesis 3:15). This incipient development of God’s purpose of mercy to man no doubt cheered Abel, Enoch, and all the pious who lived in the world’s infancy. The nature of the covenant, recognized when mercy’s faint whisperings were first heard, was more fully unfolded when that covenant was confirmed to Abraham in the words, “And in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed;” “And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed” (Genesis 12:3; Genesis 22:18). These two promises are substantially the same, the one affirming that in Abraham, the other that in his seed, all the families, or nations, of the earth should be blessed. There was to be no blessing from him personally to all nations, but the blessing was to come through his seed. Irrespective of the provisions of the covenant confirmed to Abraham, there never has been, and never will be, salvation for Jew or Gentile. There is no salvation except in Christ, and Paul informs us that he is referred to as the “seed” of Abraham: “He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ” (Galatians 3:16). The covenant with respect to Christ, if we count from the first promise to Abraham, was confirmed to him when seventy-five years old (Genesis 12:1-20), and the covenant of circumcision was made with him when he had reached his ninety ninth year (Genesis 17:1-27). Twenty-four years intervened between the two transactions, yet Pedobaptists insist that there was but one covenant. One covenant was confirmed to Abraham, and one made with him; .yet, it seems, there was but one! There is some mistake about this, for two ones added together make two.

Now, if, according to the theory of Drs. Summers and Hodge, the “gospel covenant,” or “covenant of grace,” was made with Abraham, and if circumcision was the seal of that covenant, then it had no seal for twenty-four years after it was made. Moreover, if the “gospel covenant,” or “covenant of grace,” was made with Abraham, by the provisions of what covenant were Abel, Enoch, Noah, and others who lived before the days of Abraham, saved? This question is submitted to all the Pedobaptist theologians in Christendom. If they will only consider it, they will cease to say that the “gospel covenant,” or “covenant of grace,” was made with Abraham. If, as Pedobaptists assert, circumcision was the seal of the “covenant of grace,” what became of Abraham’s female descendants? Were the blessings of the covenant not secured to them, or were they left to the “uncovenanted mercies” of God? The truth is the inspired writers never refer to circumcision or baptism as a “seal” of a covenant. Circumcision is called “a token of the covenant” which God made with Abraham (Genesis 17:11) and “a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had, yet being uncircumcised” (Romans 4:11). It was never a seal of the righteousness .of the faith of any other man. How could it be, when all Abraham’s male descendants were required to be circumcised at eight days old, when they were incapable of faith? Under the Gospel Dispensation baptism is not a seal, and Pedobaptists labor under a mistake when they so represent it. Believers are “sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise” (Ephesians 1:13). They are commanded to “grieve not the Holy Spirit of God whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption” (Ephesians 4:30). But, for argument’s sake, let baptism be considered a seal a seal of the covenant which, it is said, was formerly sealed by circumcision. Then the perplexing question arises, Why apply the seal to both sexes, when the seal of circumcision was applied to but one? Circumcision, it is argued, was a type of baptism. The type had reference to males alone. Therefore the antitype has reference to both sexes! Such reasoning is at war with the plainest principles of sound logic. There is another absurdity in making baptism the antitype of circumcision. Baptism is referred to by Peter as a “figure.” If, then, circumcision was a type of it, it was a type of a type, a figure of a figure which is incredible. But to be more specific with regard to the covenants: The covenant of circumcision made with Abraham received its full development in the covenant of Mount Sinai, There was, if the expression is allowable, a new edition of the covenant. The Sinaitic regulations were made in pursuance of the provisions of the covenant made with Abraham, and on this account circumcision, the “token of the covenant,” was incorporated into those regulations, and became a rite of the Mosaic economy. Jesus therefore said to the Jews, “If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision that the law of Moses should not be broken,” etc. (John 7:23). This language shows that the covenant of circumcision was so identified with the Sinaitic covenant that the failure to circumcise a man was a violation of the law of Moses. The old Jewish Church, then, grew out of the covenant of circumcision, which was the germ of the Sinaitic covenant that God made with the Israelites when he “took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt” (Hebrews 8:9). This covenant, entered into at Mount Sinai, was to continue in force, and did continue in force, till superseded by another and a “better covenant.” It preserved the nationality of the Jews, while circumcision marked that nationality and indicated a natural relationship to Abraham. This celebrated patriarch was to have a numerous natural seed, to which reference is made in the covenant of circumcision, and, by virtue of the provisions of the covenant “confirmed” to him concerning the Messiah, he was to have a spiritual seed also. He was to be the father of believers. Hence we have such passages of Scripture as these: “That he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised” (Romans 4:2); “They which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.” “And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Galatians 3:7; Galatians 3:29). The process of spiritual filiation to Abraham is effected by faith. Jews, therefore his natural seed cannot become his spiritual seed without faith. But if faith creates the spiritual relationship to Abraham, Gentiles as well as Jews may become his spiritual seed, for they are equally capable of faith. For the encouragement of Gentiles who were uncircumcised, Paul referred to the fact that Abraham was justified by faith before he was circumcised. Having referred to the development of the Abrahamic covenant of circumcision in the covenant of Sinai, I may now refer to the development of the covenant respecting the Messiah, out of which covenant has grown the gospel church. This is termed the new covenant, in contradistinction from the Sinaitic covenant. The development of its provisions was to occur many centuries subsequent to the giving of the law, although those provisions had an embryo existence in the covenant “confirmed” to Abraham concerning Christ. In Hebrews 8:8-12 there is a quotation from Jeremiah 31:31-34 which sheds much light on the two covenants. It is as follows: “Behold the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: and they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.” This is the new covenant new in its manifestation, though old in its origin the “better covenant, which was established upon better promises” (Hebrews 8:6). Of this covenant Jesus is Mediator, and this fact shows that the gospel covenant is the outgrowth of the covenant “confirmed of God” to Abraham concerning Christ. How essentially different the old covenant and the new! Pedobaptists, however, as we have seen, insist that the Jewish Church and the Christian Church are the same! God found fault with the old covenant, and superseded it by the new; yet it seems that the new which displaces the old is substantially identical with it! It is strange that men do not observe that God, in describing the new covenant, says expressly, “NOT ACCORDING TO THE COVENANT THAT I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS,” the old covenant.

Several distinctive points of difference between the old covenant and the new may be seen in Galatians 4:22-31. There are four allegorical personages referred to by Paul namely, Hagar, Ishmael, Sarah, and Isaac. Hagar was a “bondmaid,” and gave birth to a son “after the flesh” that is, there was in his birth no departure from the laws of ordinary generation. This “bondwoman” represents the covenant of Sinai, and “answereth to Jerusalem, which now is” the old Jewish Church, which “gendereth to bondage.” Jerusalem the Jewish Church is therefore said to be “in bondage with her children.” To “gender to bondage” was all that Sinai could do; there was no provision in the Sinaitic covenant for anything more: its possibilities were exhausted. Sarah, “the free woman,” represents the new covenant, and the Christian Church of which that covenant is the charter. She gave birth to Isaac, who was born “by promise” “after the Spirit” that is, according to a promise the fulfilment of which involved supernatural agency “Jerusalem which is above” the Christian Church represented by Sarah “is free, which is the mother of us all,” of all Christians. Believers in Christ are of the children of promise,” as Isaac was. They are ‘born “after the Spirit” and “of the Spirit.” Thus it is as clear as the light of day that, while the Jewish Church was supplied with its members by generation, the Christian Church is furnished with its members by regeneration. This is one prominent difference between the two, and it is as great as that between death and immortality. “But as then,” says the apostle, “he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.” Ishmael persecuted Isaac, and so the children of the covenant of Sinai Abraham’s seed according to the flesh persecuted, in apostolic times, the beneficiaries of the new covenant, Abraham’s spiritual seed. Sinai, in “gendering to bondage,” also “gendered” a persecuting spirit and it is worthy of remark that an infusion of Judaism into the sentiments of any religious denomination has a tendency to make it a persecuting denomination. This fact is both significant and suggestive. “Nevertheless, what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son; for the son of the “bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.”

Here is authority for keeping all but regenerate persons out of the Christian Church: “Cast out the bondwoman and her son.” The Jews, considered as Abraham’s natural seed, had no right to the privileges of the church of Christ. They had first to become Christ’s disciples by faith, and then they were in the important sense Abraham’s seed. Paul never forgot one of the first principles of the gospel economy announced by John the Baptist to the Pharisees and the Sadducees: “Think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father; for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham” (Matthew 3:9). They were, under the New Dispensation, to claim nothing on the ground of their lineal descent from Abraham. Piety was to be an intensely personal concern. Daniel Webster once said, “The bed of death brings every human being to his pure individuality.” This is true; but Christianity does the same thing before it is done by “the bed of death.” The gospel places everyone on the basis of his “pure individuality” before God.

4. The supposed identity of the Jewish Church and the Christian Church involves absurdities and impossibilities.

According to this view, the scribes, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and all the Jews were members of the church; yet it is notorious that they procured the crucifixion of the Head of the church. These church members, many of them occupying “official positions,” manifested bitter enmity to Christ, and said, “We will not have this man to reign over us.” They charged him with being in league with Satan in casting out demons. When he was condemned to death they said, “His blood be on us and on our children” (Matthew 27:25). Strange language for church-members to employ! Who can believe that they were members of a church “the same in substance” with the Christian Church? If the Pedobaptist position is tenable, the three thousand converts on the day of Pentecost were added to the church, though they were in it before! The Lord added daily to the church not only the saved (Acts 2:47), but those already members! When a great company of priests became obedient to the faith, they joined themselves to the apostles and were put out of the synagogues, though the Jews putting them out were of the same church! Saul of Tarsus “persecuted the church and wasted it” “made havoc” of it and when converted became a member of the church, though he had always been one! Ay, more, he obtained his authority to persecute from official members of the church. These and many other absurdities and impossibilities are involved in the supposition that the Jewish Church and the Christian Church are the same. They are not the same. The phrases “same in substance,” “substantial identity,” cannot avail Pedobaptists; for there is no sort of identity. A “substantial sameness” cannot be discovered with a theological microscope. Paul’s teaching is that Jesus Christ makes “of twain one new man” (Ephesians 2:15) that is, regenerated Jews and Gentiles are the materials of which the new man, or church, is composed. There is reference to an organization, and the descriptive epithet “new” is applied to it. Pedobaptists virtually say that the Lord Jesus did not make a “new man.” They advocate the claims of the “old man,” admitting, however, that he is changed in some unimportant respect; so that his “substantial identity” remains unimpaired.

What effect would have been produced in apostolic times on the minds of unbelieving Jews if it had been intimated that their church was identical with the Christian Church? They would have been highly offended. Paul exemplified the most indignant eloquence whenever false teachers attempted to corrupt the purity of the Christian Church with the leaven of Judaism. The old Jewish Church and the church of the New Testament were regarded by believers and by unbelievers as essentially distinct. No one thought of their “substantial identity;” for infant baptism was unknown, and there was nothing to suggest the “identity” doctrine. It is as easy for a camel to go through the eye of a needle as for the identity of the Jewish and the Christian churches to be maintained. If there is no identity, infant membership in the Jewish commonwealth is no authority for infant membership in the Christian Church j and it is perfectly gratuitous to insist that baptism has come in the place of circumcision. Still, the advocates of infant baptism argue that circumcision is superseded by baptism, and that, as infants were circumcised under the Jewish economy, they should be baptized under the Christian Dispensation.

SECTION VIII. The argument from circumcision fails. The position advocated by Pedobaptists will be seen from the following extracts.

Dr. Miller already referred to says: “Our next step is to show that baptism has come in the room of circumcision, and therefore that the former is rightfully and properly applied to the same subjects as the latter.” Again: “There is the best foundation for asserting that baptism has come in the place of circumcision. Yet, though baptism manifestly comes in the place of circumcision, there are points in regard to which the former differs materially from the latter.” [Note: Sermons on Baptism, pp. 22, 23.] Here the doctrine is stated unequivocally that “baptism has come in the place, of circumcision.” How it takes its place, and yet “differs materially from it” on some “points” must ever be a mystery to persons of ordinary mental penetration.

Dr. E-ice says: “It is certain that baptism came in place of circumcision; that it answers the same ends in the church now that were answered by circumcision under the former dispensation.” [Note: Debate with Campbell, p. 302.]

Dr. Summers affirms: “That baptism is the ordinance of initiation into the church, and the sign and seal of the covenant now, as circumcision was formerly, is evident.” [Note: Summers on Baptism, pp. 25, 26]

I find in Dr. Hodge’s Theology no statements so positive as those now quoted, but he so expresses himself that it is impossible not to infer his belief in the substitution of baptism for circumcision. But is this view, though held by great and learned men, defensible? I shall attempt to show that it is not, for the following reasons:

1. It was necessary for the circumcised to be baptized before they could become members of the church of Christ.

How was this, if baptism came in the place of circumcision and is a seal of the same covenant? Was the covenant first sealed by circumcision, and subsequently sealed by baptism? Were there two seals? If so, away goes the substitution theory. If the same persons were both circumcised and baptized, there was. SO far as they were concerned, no substitution of baptism for circumcision. In their case circumcision was not abolished, and nothing could take its place. It occupied its own place, and it was necessary for that place to be vacated before anything else could occupy it. Dr. Miller refers to baptism as coming “in the room” of circumcision; but there was no “room” till the non-observance of circumcision made room. Why, then, were those who had been circumcised baptized? Why was Jesus himself both circumcised and baptized? These are unanswerable questions if baptism came in the place of circumcision.

Dr. Miller’s views involve another difficulty. He says: “The children of professing Christians are already in the church. They were born members; their baptism did not make them members. It was a public ratification and recognition of their membership. They were baptized because they were members” (p. 74). The position here assumed is demolished by one fact. That fact is that the New Testament subjects of baptism are never represented as baptized because they are in the church, but that they may enter into it. Dr. Miller’s reason for administering baptism to infants labors under the misfortune of being remarkably unscriptural; for if “the children of professing Christians are already in the church,” this is a very good reason for not baptizing them at all.

Anyone familiar with the baptismal controversy can see that Dr. Miller’s Abrahamic and Judaistic notions vitiated his logic in its application to evangelical subjects. He reasoned in this way: The natural seed of Abraham were members of the Jewish National Church by virtue of their birth; and so far his reasoning was correct. They were circumcised because by natural generation they were made beneficiaries of the covenant of which circumcision was the “token.” Dr. Miller’s next step was this: The children of professing Christians are born members of the Christian Church, and are entitled to baptism, even as Abraham’s natural seed were entitled to circumcision. But is this true? It cannot be. Whatever rational analogy may be traced between circumcision and baptism is on the side of the opponents of infant baptism. How plain this is! Abraham’s natural seed were circumcised because they had a birthright-interest in the covenant God made with Abraham. Christians are Abraham’s spiritual seed. They become so by faith in Christ, and are beneficiaries of the new covenant, the provisions of which are eminently spiritual. There is in baptism a recognition of their interest in the blessings of this covenant. It was right to circumcise Abraham’s natural seed, and it is right to baptize his spiritual seed; but who are his spiritual seed? Believers in Christ, and believers alone. Infants, therefore, have no right to baptism, because they are not Abraham’s spiritual seed. Jewish infants were fit subjects for circumcision, because they were Abraham’s natural seed; but neither Jewish nor Gentile infants can be his spiritual seed, because of their incapacity to believe, and therefore they ought not to be baptized. I insist, then, that correct analogical reasoning from circumcision to baptism saps the very foundation of Pedobaptism and furnishes Baptists with an argument of the strength of which they have never fully availed themselves. This may be considered a digression. If so, let us return to the subject of discussion.

I was attempting to show that baptism did not come in the place of circumcision, and referred to the well-known fact that multitudes of circumcised persons were also baptized. This could never have taken place if baptism came in the room of circumcision. In this connection, the circumcision of Timothy is worthy of notice. His mother was a Jewess, but his father a Greek. Owing to the latter fact, doubtless, he remained uncircumcised. After his conversion and baptism Timothy was circumcised by Paul. This was done to conciliate the Jews, which shows that they considered circumcision a mark of nationality. Now the question arises, Why did Paul circumcise Timothy, who had been baptized, if baptism came in the place of circumcision? Thus in the New Testament we have baptism administered after circumcision, and circumcision performed after baptism: yet Pedobaptiste say that the one came in the place of the other!

2. A second fact to be noticed is that circumcision was confined to one sex.

Premises and conclusions are often wide as the poles asunder. Of this we have a striking proof in the reasoning of Pedobaptists from the circumcision of infants under the Old Dispensation to the baptism of infants under the New. The fact they begin with is of course this: Male children were circumcised under the Old Testament economy. The conclusion is: Therefore male and female children ought to be baptized under the gospel economy. Is this logic? If but one sex is recognized in the premise, how is it that there is a recognition of both sexes in the conclusion? There must be something wrong in the reasoning that brings out more in conclusions than is contained in premises. This is the misfortune of the argument now under consideration. Pedobaptists most gratuitously infer that, as children of one sex were formerly circumcised, therefore children of both sexes should now be baptized. Surely, if baptism came in place of circumcision, its administration should be confined to the male sex; but it is by divine authority administered to believers of the other sex, and therefore it did not come in place of circumcision. Pedobaptists must admit that, so far as female infants are concerned, baptism did not take the place of circumcision; for circumcision occupied no place, and therefore could not be displaced by anything’ else. This is so plain as to need no elaboration.

3. The eighth day was appointed for the circumcision of infants. Is this true of infant baptism? The thing itself is not commanded, to say nothing of the time. But Pedobaptists must be met on their own ground. They say that baptism has come “in the room of circumcision.” If they believe this, consistency requires that they baptize male infants alone, and that they be baptized on the eighth day. Do they pursue this course? They do not; and their failure to do so may well excite doubt whether they are perfectly satisfied with their position.

4. The Council of apostles, elders, and brethren at Jerusalem virtually denied the substitution of baptism for circumcision. In Acts 15:1-41 : we have an account of this Council. The reason for its convocation was this: “Certain men” went from Judea to Antioch and “taught the brethren,” saying, “Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.” Paul and Barnabas joined issue with these “men,” and after much disputation it was determined to send a deputation to Jerusalem to consult “the apostles and elders about this question.” Paul and Barnabas belonged to this deputation, and upon their arrival at Jerusalem, before the Council met, some of the believing Pharisees urged the necessity of circumcision. The same question, therefore, was agitated both at Antioch and at Jerusalem. That question was whether the believing Gentiles ought to be circumcised. The Council met, and after due deliberation and consultation “it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church,” to decide against the circumcision of Gentiles. Now, if baptism came in place of circumcision, the apostles knew it, and this was the time to declare it. A simple statement of the fact would have superseded all discussion. Why did they not say, “Circumcision is unnecessary, because baptism has taken its place”? This is what Pedobaptists would have said if they had been in that Council. The inspired apostles, however, did not say it. Indeed, the decision of the Council had reference to the believing Gentiles alone, and the understanding evidently was that believing Jews were at liberty to circumcise their children. This we may learn from Acts 21:17-25, and it is a fact utterly irreconcilable with the substitution of baptism for circumcision. When circumcision was regarded as a mark to designate nationality, Paul made no objection to it; but when its necessity to salvation was urged, he considered the great doctrine of justification by faith in Christ disparaged and shorn of its glory. To all circumcised with this latter view he said: “If ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing” (Galatians 5:2). But to return to the Council at Jerusalem: If baptism came in place of circumcision, the very reason which called that Council together must have led to a declaration of the fact, and it is strangely unaccountable that it did not. We are forced to the conclusion that baptism was not, in apostolic times, believed to be a substitute for circumcision. Hence the Council at Jerusalem could not, and did not, say it was. Its decision involved a virtual denial of the very thing for which Pedobaptists so strenuously contend.

I have now given a specimen and but a specimen of the considerations which show that baptism has not taken the place of circumcision. A volume might be written on this one point; but it is needless. He who is not convinced by the facts already presented would not be convinced “though one should rise from the dead.” The Scripture argument on infant baptism is now closed. I have examined the New Testament claim of infants to baptism, and also the Old Testament claim, and can perceive no mark of validity in either. My readers will therefore allow me to endorse what the North British Review, the organ of the Free (Presbyterian) Church of Scotland, says in its number for August, 1852: “SCRIPTURE KNOWS NOTHING OF THE BAPTISM OF INFANTS.”

SECTION IX. The historical argument examined. From the word of God, Pedobaptists go to church history and seek “aid and comfort” from its records. What does church history say of infant baptism? Much, I admit; but there is no proof that it was practised before the latter part of the second century. The proof is by no means conclusive that it was practised before the third century. This the reader will see as historical facts are presented.

I quote from Dr. Wall of the Church of England, whose History of Infant Baptism is in high repute wherever the English language is spoken. Referring, in chap. 3, to the well-known passage in Irenseus, he says, “Since this is the first express mention that we have met with of infants baptized, it is worth the while to look back and consider how near this man was to the apostles time.” Irenaeus, according to Dr. Wall’s chronology, lived about the year 167. It is well to give the disputed passage. Here it is: “For he [Christ] came to save all persons by himself: all, I mean, who by him are regenerated [or baptized] unto God; infants, and little ones, and children, and youths, and elder persons. Therefore he went through every age; for infants being an infant, sanctifying infants” etc. It is needless to quote further, for the controversy is about the meaning of the word “regenerated.” If will be observed that Dr. Wall interpolates “baptized” as its meaning. Renascor is the word used in the Latin translation; for the original Greek is lost. That renascor means “born again” or “regenerated” is beyond dispute; nor is it necessary to deny that the “Fathers,” so called, sometimes use it as synonymous with “baptized.” Baptists, however, deny that it has this meaning in the passage under consideration, and distinguished Pedobaptists agree with them, as the following quotations prove. The learned Winer, speaking of infant baptism, says, “Irena3us does not mention it, as has been supposed.” [Note: Christian Review, vol. 3, p. 213.]

Dr. Doddridge says, “We have only a Latin translation of this work; and some critics have supposed this passage spurious, or, allowing it to be genuine, it will not be granted that to be regenerate always in his writings signifies “baptized.” [Note: Miscellaneous Works, p. 493]

Pedobaptists must deeply feel their need of something to sustain their practice when they attempt to extort from Irenseus testimony in favor of infant baptism. He says nothing about baptism in connection with infants.

Tertullian, who lived about the year 200, is often referred to by Pedobaptists as the first opponent of infant baptism, but they argue that his opposition proves the existence of the practice. It is by no means certain that Tertullian refers to the baptism of infants. The term which he uses, and which Dr. Wall translates “little children,” is parvutos. Irenseus speaks of infantes, parvulos. He makes a distinction between infantes and parvulos. If Tertullian uses the latter term as Irenseus did, he does not refer to the baptism of unconscious infants, but to the baptism of “little children.” These “little children” may have been capable of exercising faith in Christ. Whether they were or not I do not undertake to decide. It is true, however, that Tertullian, owing to his peculiar views, advised a delay of .baptism on the part of certain classes of persons who had reached mature years.

Having come down to the beginning of the third century, may I not say that if infant baptism rests for its support on the practice of the first two centuries, it rests on a foundation of sand? To the end of two hundred years it has no distinct historical recognition. From Tertullian, Dr. Wall comes to Origen, whom he represents as living about the year 210. Origen wrote in Greek, and his works in the original were chiefly lost and Latin translations remain. Dr. Wall says “only the Latin translations.” However this may be, he tells us that “upon the renewal of learning” nothing was admitted to be Origen’s except translations made “into Latin either by St. Hierom [Note: Same as “Jerome.”] or Rufinus” He accords fidelity to Hierom in his translations, but says that “Rufinus altered or left out anything that he thought not orthodox.” Nor is this all; for these significant words are added: “Whereas now in these Translations of Rufinus the reader is uncertain (as Erasmus angrily says) whether he read Origen or Rufinus.” [Note: History of Infant Baptism, chap. 5: In quoting from Dr. Wall I refer to chapters rather than to pages, because his History is published in different forms. I have the edition of 1705.]

Dr. Wall admits that Origen’s Homilies on Leviticus and his Comments on the Epistle to the Romans were translated by Rufinus; and in these productions we are supposed to have his strongest testimony in favor of infant baptism. In his eighth Homily he is represented as saying, “Infants also are, by the usage of the church, baptized.” In his comments on Romans this language is attributed to him: “The church had from the apostles a tradition [or order] to give baptism even to infants.” This is Dr. Wall’s translation. He was very anxious to translate the Latin term traditio “order.” It seems, however, that he had some misgiving, and therefore put the word “order” in brackets. Let it not be forgotten that the translation of these portions of Origen’s works was made from Greek into Latin by Rufinus, who “altered or left out anything that he thought riot orthodox.” Who knows, therefore who can ever know whether Origen wrote what is here ascribed to him? What alterations were made in his writings? Such as Rufinus, in his orthodoxy, thought proper. What things were “left out”? Only those that Rufinus thought ought to be left out! Erasmus, a prodigy of learning in his day, was uncertain whether he read “Origen or Rufinus.” But if Origen did say what Rufinus represents him as saying, what does it amount to? Absolutely nothing with those who recognize the word of God as the only rule of faith and practice. The “usage of the church” and “a tradition from the apostles” are referred to as authority for infant baptism; there is no appeal to the Holy Scriptures. Who but a Romanist is willing to practise infant baptism as a tradition, and not a divine ordinance? Origen’s testimony is valuable to a Papist, entirely worthless to a Protestant.

Leaving the “uncertain” writings of Origen, Dr. Wall conducts us into the Council of Carthage, in the year 253. This Council was composed of sixty-six bishops, or pastors, and Cyprian presided over it. One of the questions submitted to its decision was whether a child should be baptized before it was eight days old. Fidus, who presented the question, was in the negative; and rightly too, if the law of circumcision was to regulate the matter. The very fact that such a question was sent to the Council shows that infant baptism was a new thing. Had it been practised from the days of the apostles, the point whether a child should be baptized before the eighth day would have been settled before A. D. 253. The Council decided against the delay of baptism, assigning this weighty reason: “As far as in us lies, no soul, if possible, is to be lost.” Here it will be seen that the necessity of baptism, in order to salvation, is recognized. In this supposed necessity infant baptism, doubtless, had its origin. This will be clear when the testimony of the great Neander is presented. The Council of Carthage attempted to justify infant baptism by referring to the fact that when the son of the Shunammite widow (2 Kings 4:1-44) died, the prophet Elisha so stretched himself on the child as to apply his face to the child’s face, his feet to the child’s feet, etc. By this, said the Council, “spiritual equality is intimated” that is, a child is spiritually equal to a grown person! A conclusive reason for infant baptism, truly! The cause must be desperate, indeed, when the decision of a Council that could gravely advance such a conceit as an argument is invoked to sustain it. [Note: The reader who wishes to verify the statements here made concerning the Council of Carthage may refer to Wall’s History, chap. 6.]

It is not necessary to refer to other of the so-called “Christian Fathers,” especially to Augustine, as testifying in favor of infant baptism for Baptists do not deny that infants were baptized from the days of Cyprian. Augustine, who died A. D. 430, refers to infant baptism as an apostolic tradition: apostoliea traditio is the phrase he employs. He meant, no doubt, that it was handed down from the apostles by tradition that infants were to be baptized. This implies the silence of the New Testament on the subject. No one would say that it was handed down by tradition that believers are to be baptized. Why? Because the baptism of believers is so clearly taught that tradition is precluded. Not so as to infant baptism; for here there is room for tradition, because in regard to this rite the Scriptures are as silent as the grave. As to Augustine himself, the tradition to which he refers was not sufficiently operative to secure his baptism in infancy, though his mother, Monica, was a pious woman. He was not baptized till thirty years of age.

It has been intimated that the testimony of the great church historian Neander is decisive as to the origin of infant baptism in its supposed necessity in order to salvation. He says, “That not till so late a period as (at least, certainly not earlier than) Irenseus a trace of infant baptism appears, and that it first became recognized as an apostolic tradition in the course of the third century, is evidence rather against than for the admission of its apostolic origin; specially since, in the spirit of the age when Christianity appeared, there were many elements which must have been favorable to the introduction of infant baptism the same elements from which proceeded the notion of the magical effects of outward baptism, the’ notion of its absolute necessity for salvation, the notion which gave rise to the my thus [myth] that the apostles baptized the Old-Testament saints in Hades. How very much must infant baptism have corresponded with such a tendency if it had been favored by tradition! [Note: Planting and Training of the Church, p. 102.]

Dr. Wall in the second part of his History, chap. 6, referring to the “ancient Fathers,” says, “They differ concerning the future state of infants dying unbaptized; but all agreed that they missed of heaven.” In view of this testimony of two Pedobaptists of great celebrity, who does not see that infant baptism originated from its supposed inseparable connection with salvation? A deplorable misconception of the truth of the gospel gave it birth, while misapprehension of the teachings of the New Testament prolongs its injurious existence. The “historical argument” for infant baptism affords very little “aid and comfort” to Pedobaptists. But suppose it was a thousand times stronger; suppose every writer from the death of the last apostle had expressed himself in favor of it; even then it would be nothing less than an act of will worship while the Scriptures are silent concerning it. The perplexing question, “Who hath required this at your hands?” should confound its advocates. “The Bible, the Bible alone” said Chillingworth, “is the religion of Protestants.” Arguments from antiquity, to be available, must penetrate the antiquity of the apostolic age and rest on the teachings of the New Testament. All other arguments are worthless.

SECTION X.

Objections to infant baptism. In view of the considerations presented in the preceding pages, there must be very serious objections to infant baptism. Some of these objections will now be considered.

1. A decided objection to it is that its advocates cannot agree why it should be practised.

How conflicting, how antagonistic, their opinions! Roman Catholics baptize infants, in order to their salvation. They consider baptism essential to the salvation of both adults and infants. They have sometimes shown the sincerity of their belief by attempting to baptize children before they were born. Episcopalians, in accepting the teachings of the “Book of Common Prayer,” baptize infants to make them children of God by regeneration. John Calvin, as may be seen in his Life by Henry (vol. 1, pp. 82, 83), maintains that infants are capable of exercising faith, and that their baptism is an exemplification of believers’ baptism. This seems also to have been Martin Luther’s opinion. John Wesley in his Treatise on Baptism says, “If infants are guilty of original sin, they are proper subjects of baptism, seeing, in the ordinary way, that they cannot be saved, unless this be washed away in baptism.” The “Directory” of the Westminster Assembly places the right of the infants of believers to baptism on the ground that they are “federally holy.” The opinion held by probably the larger number of Protestant Pedobaptists is that infants are baptized “to bring them into the church.” But Dr. Samuel Miller, as we have seen, insists that the children of Christian parents are born members of the church, and are baptized because they are members: while Dr. Summers derives the right of infants to baptism from “their personal connection with the Second Adam.” These are specimens of the reasons urged in favor of infant baptism. How contradictory! How antagonistic! It seems that infants are to be baptized that they may be saved; that they may be regenerated; because they have faith; because their parents are believers; because they are involved in original sin; because they are holy; because they ought to be brought into the church; because they are in the church by virtue of their birth; and because of their “personal connection” with Christ, in consequence of his assumption of human nature. It would be well for the various sects of Pedobaptists to call a Council to decide why infants should be baptized. The reasons in favor of the practice are at present so contradictory and so self-destructive that it must involve the advocates of the system in great perplexity. Many, though, would object to such a Council because, for obvious reasons, the Pope of Rome should preside over it, and others would object because it would probably be in session as long as the Council of Trent. Still, if one good reason could be furnished for infant baptism by the united wisdom of Romanists and Protestants, it would be more satisfactory than all the reasons which are now urged.

2. A second objection to infant baptism is that its tendency is to unite the church and the world.

Jesus Christ evidently designed the church to be the light of the world. His followers are not of the world, but are chosen out of the world. If anything in the New Testament is plain, it is plain that the Lord Jesus intended that there should be a line of demarcation between the church and the world. It is needless to argue a point so clear. Now, the tendency of infant baptism is to unite the church and the world, and thus to obliterate the line of demarcation which the Saviour has established. Let the principles of Pedobaptism universally prevail, and one of three things will inevitably follow either there will be no church, or there will be no world, or there will be a worldly church. The universal prevalence of Pedobaptist sentiments would bring all “born of the flesh” into the church. To be born, not to be born again, would be the qualification for membership. The unregenerate members would be in a large majority. The world would absorb the church, or, to say the least, there would be an intensely worldly church. Is this not true of the national churches of Europe? The time has been, whatever may be the case now, when in England “partaking of the Lord’s Supper” preceded the holding of the civil and military offices of the kingdom. Thus a premium was offered for hypocrisy, and many an infidel availed himself of it. In the United States of America there are so many counteracting influences that infant baptism, cannot fully develop its tendency to unite the church and the world. Indeed, in some respects, Pedobaptists practically repudiate their own principles. They do not treat their “baptized children” as church-members. If they did, there would be a deplorable state of things. The unregenerate members of local congregations would generally be in the majority, and would exert a controlling influence.

3. Another objection to infant baptism is that it cherishes in “baptized children” the delusive belief that they are better than others; that their salvation is more hopeful. In many instances, it is to be feared, they are led to consider themselves in a saved state. The children of Romanists must so regard themselves if they attribute to baptism the efficacy ascribed to it by Papists. If the children of Episcopalians believe the “Book of Common Prayer,” they must grow up under the false persuasion that in their baptism they “were made members of Christ, children of God, and inheritors of the kingdom of heaven.” If the children of Methodists believe the “Discipline,” and that the prayer offered at their baptism was heard, they must recognize themselves as baptized not only “with water,” but “with the Holy Ghost.” If the children of Presbyterians believe the “Westminster Confession” and the “Directory,” they look upon themselves as “federally holy” “in covenant with God” and consider that “the covenant was sealed by their baptism.” Will not all these classes of children imagine themselves better than others? Will they not, under the teaching they receive, view other children as consigned to the “uncovenanted mercies” of God, while they occupy a high vantage-ground? Will not their delusive belief present a serious obstacle in the way of their salvation? Is there any rational probability of their salvation, unless they disbelieve the dogmas inculcated in their baptism? Will the children of Roman Catholics ever be saved while they regard their baptism as having placed them in a saved state? Will the children of Episcopalians become the “children of God” so long as they entertain the absurd notion that they were made his children by baptism? Will the children of Methodists be regenerated while they imagine that they have been baptized “with the Holy Ghost”? Will the children of Presbyterians repent and acknowledge their guilt and condemnation before God while they lay the “flattering unction to their souls” that they are “federally holy” and “in covenant with God”?

I would not give offence, but must say that Pedobaptist children must take the first step in the pursuit of salvation by practically denying the truth of what they have been taught concerning their baptism. It will be asked, Are not thousands of the children of Pedobaptists converted to God? I gladly concede it; but why is it so? One prominent reason, doubtless, is that, on the part of their ministers and parents, there is a practical repudiation of their baptismal theories. The “baptized children,” whatever the baptismal formulas may say, are taught that they are sinners, unregenerate, lost, condemned, and exposed to the wrath of God, for the very reason that they are not “in covenant” with him. Thanks be to God that the preaching and teaching of Pedobaptists do not accord with their “Creeds,” so far as the subject of infant baptism is concerned! The discrepancy is vital to the welfare of their offspring. There are some happy inconsistencies.

4. A fourth objection to infant baptism is that it interferes with the independent action of the minds of “baptized children” on the subject of baptism, and in numberless instances prevents baptism on a profession of faith in Christ.

Suppose, when “baptized children” reach mature years, they are, as is often the case, annoyed with doubts concerning the validity of their baptism. They feel at once that they cannot entertain these doubts without virtually calling in question the propriety of what their parents caused to be done for them in their infancy. Filial respect and reverence present almost insuperable barriers in the way of an impartial investigation of the subject. The question comes up, Shall we reflect on the wisdom of our parents by declaring their act null and void? If the parents are dead and gone to be with Christ, the difficulty is often greater. The question then assumes this form: Shall we repudiate what our now glorified parents did for us in our infancy? It often requires a great struggle to surmount the difficulty, and in many cases it is never surmounted. It is unquestionably true that the influence of infant baptism interferes with the unbiased action of many minds with regard to scriptural baptism. How great would be the number of those who, but for their infant baptism so called, would be baptized on a profession of faith in Christ! They hesitate to say that the “infantile rite” was worthless. They know that great and good men have practised infant baptism. Their minds are perplexed. They wish it had so happened that they had not been baptized in infancy. Still, the sprinkling of the baptismal (!) waters on them in infancy now prevents an intelligent immersion into Christ on a profession of faith in his name. Is it not an objection to infant baptism that it prevents so many from obeying Christ, and even fosters a spirit of disobedience?

5. As a last objection to infant baptism, I refer to its tendency to supplant believers’ baptism and banish it from the world. This objection, though presented last, is first in importance. It is, indeed, the capital objection, and if exhibited in all its phases would virtually embrace all objections. It is not, however, necessary to dwell on it at length, because its force and conclusiveness are readily seen. By all who practise baptism at all it is admitted that the New Testament enjoins the baptism of believers in Christ. The universality of this admission precludes the necessity of proof. The baptism of believers, then, is a divine ordinance. Is it reasonable to suppose that two divine ordinances antagonize with each other? Is it credible that this is the case? Pedobaptists say that infant baptism is a divine ordinance, and they are slow to admit that it antagonizes with the baptism of believers. But the antagonism is direct, positive. The inevitable tendency of infant baptism is to supplant the baptism of believers. This is owing to the fact that it is practically regarded by Pedobaptists as superseding the necessity of believers’ baptism. It must be so regarded, or it is made null and void. When baptized infants grow up to maturity and become believers in Christ, there is nothing said among Pedobaptists about baptism on a profession of faith. No; the baptism of the unconscious infant is allowed to prevent the baptism of the intelligent believer. Hence it is easy to see the tendency of infant baptism to supplant and banish the baptism of believers from the world. A supposition will make this so plain that no one can misunderstand it: Let it be supposed, then, that the principles of Pedobaptists prevail throughout the world. All parents come into the church and have their children baptized in infancy. If this supposition were realized, where would believers’ baptism be? It would in one generation be utterly supplanted and banished from the world. An ordinance established by Christ to be observed to the end of time would be abolished. There would be no scriptural baptism on earth. One of the institutions of the Head of the church would not be permitted to have a place in the world which he made, and in which he labored, toiled suffered, and died! How startling and fearful is this! A human tradition arraying itself against an ordinance of Heaven, and attempting to destroy it and leave no memorial of its existence on the face of the globe!

Influenced by the considerations presented in the ten sections of this chapter, Baptists regard infant baptism as utterly destitute of scriptural support; and, in view of its many evils, they are most decided in their opposition to it. On the other hand, they are the earnest advocates of the baptism of believers in Christ; and of believers alone. In this opposition and in this advocacy may be seen one of the prominent DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS.