by Rev. E. A. Rayner B.A.
All Christians would agree that baptism is a sacrament given by Christ to the visible Church and that this ordinance rests squarely on Scripture. Christ’s command to His disciples, following the resurrection, was, “Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” (Matt. 28:17). But following this there is disagreement among Christians, both with respect to the subjects and mode of baptism. Before discussing these differences it is to be noticed in passing that all Christians agree that adults are fit subjects for baptism. The area of dispute concerns the baptism of infants. The question concerning us is, are infants fit subjects of baptism? And if this is Scriptural whose children are to be baptised?
The objection to infant baptism by Baptists may be summed up as follows:—
1. A person who has a right to an ordinance must be expressly directed in Scripture as having that right, but since infants are not mentioned, therefore they have no right.
2. The Scriptures require faith and repentance as prerequisites to baptism. Infants cannot have these, therefore they should not be baptised.
These are the two basic objections against infant baptism and all other arguments against it come within the scope of these.
While it is admitted that there is no direct and express command to baptise infants yet this does not invalidate infant baptism. Women do not have any direct precept to partake of the Lord’s Supper, but who would deny their right to this ordinance? To prove the right of women to participate in the Lord’s Supper requires argument by way of implication, analogy and inference. Thus should Baptists deny infant baptism on the first point they also by logical implication should deny women the right to sit at the Lord’s Supper. It has been argued by T. E. Watson in Baptism not for Infants (p.47), that the term disciples includes both men and women; so that when “Jesus took bread and blessed it and brake it and gave to the disciples,” we have there a sufficient warrant for including women as communicants. But the point is that this is not an express warrant. Resort must be made to reasoned deduction. This shows how unreasonable the demand is by Baptists respecting the first point and that their argument therefore is a bad one.
Their second main point against infant baptism is also a fallacious one. The fallibility of this premise may be seen when the rite of circumcision is compared with that of baptism. Circumcision, like baptism, was an outward sign representing an inward grace. (Rom. 2. 28,29 and Deut 30:6). Now the faith of Old Testament saints was of the same sort as for New Testament saints, if they were to be saved. “Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness.” (Rom. 4:3). Circumcision was given as a sign and seal of this, not only for himself, but for his seed. Yet circumcised infants could not exercise faith and repentance any more than baptised infants. Furthermore, that infants are subjects of salvation, is admitted even by Baptists. Yet here is something said concerning salvation which will be no means apply to infants, “He that believeth shall be saved; he that believeth not shall be damned.” This being so it may be reasoned by the same token that infants must not be saved because something is said about salvation which does not apply to infants. This parallel argument shows clearly how Baptist arguments against infant baptism are unfounded.
In the next place we may ask what the arguments are for infant baptism, seeing the main objections against it are fallacious. To put matters in perspective let there firstly be a scriptural view of the church. The church consists not only of New Testament saints but also those of the Old Testament. The eleventh chapter of Romans speaks of the church as an olive tree from which the Jewish branches have been cut off and the Gentile branches grafted in. We may therefore conclude that there is a unity and continuity of the visible church in Old and New Testament days.
Following this it may be asked what constituted the membership of this church or rather how were members admitted? Under the Old Testament dispensation membership was dependent upon the covenant made with Abraham. This covenant included children. (Gen. 17:7). “And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee . . . for an everlasting covenant.” John Murray in Christian Baptism (p.49), points out concerning this covenant, “that it was the sign and seal of the highest and richest spiritual blessings . . . (and) any significance which circumcision possessed along the line of national identity and privilege was secondarily derived.” But has this covenant been terminated? Is not the gospel dispensation the blossoming of Abraham’s covenant and the expansion and enlargement of covenant blessings? In the sermon preached at Pentecost, men were exhorted to believe and repent, “because the promise (covenant) is unto you and your children.” (Acts 2:39). In other words children are still included in this covenant, which far from having been revoked is given direct, Scriptural warrant for its continuance. What Acts 2:38-39 indicates is that children along with their parents are possessors of God’s covenant promise in the New Testament as well as in the Old. Nor does this text restrict the interpretation of the word children to those who are of age. This would be entirely contrary to Peter’s background, or heritage.
The sign and seal of this covenant, which indicates affiliation with the visible Church, was circumcision in Old Testament times, and baptism in the New Testament dispensation. Also circumcision and baptism were signs and seals of the one covenant. This is plainly indicated in Col. 2:11-12, “In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ, buried with him in baptism wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God.” Here then is the identity of circumcision with baptism. T. E. Watson (p.41) tries to brush aside this argument by saying that the Apostle Paul does not mention the ordinance of circumcision as such and that the circumcision he refers to is “made without hands.” Nevertheless what circumcision as an ordinance represents and what baptism represents are one and the same thing — that is the inward purification by the washing of regeneration. Watson (p.42) even admits that “What Paul is saying is that circumcision and baptism are different symbols of the same truth.” There is no dispute here, but what Watson tries to argue is that baptism never replaced circumcision. It would seem strangely superfluous to have two different symbols representing the same truth. He points out that the Jewish Christians at Jerusalem still continued circumcising their children; yet he admits in quoting Albert Barnes that “The Apostles conformed to them while they remained at Jerusalem and did not deem it best to set themselves violently against them.” (p.42). It is surprising that Watson continues to argue his position by remarking that “we never find the Apostles teaching circumcision is out of date. Baptism has come in its place.” If Watson were logical he would still expect Jewish converts not only to be circumcised but presumably to keep the seventh day of the week holy instead of the Lord’s Day, since no direct command was given to change it. Surely it seems obvious to common sense that those Old Testament ordinances were judiciously phased out so that unnecessary offences would not arise. Maybe Mr Watson conveniently forgot that the Apostle teaches, “For he is our peace who hath made both one and hath broken down the middle wall of partition,” (Eph. 2:14) or that “there is neither Jew nor Greek . . . for we are all one in Christ Jesus.” Gal. 3:28.
It would indeed seem contrary to expectation to find that infants had less privileges in the New Testament than in the Old Testament era. It cannot be too strongly emphasised that this change would imply a complete reversal of the earlier divinely instituted practice of including infants in the covenant. We do not find a particle of evidence or any intimation of such a reversal in the whole Bible. Perhaps we may demand as the Baptists do for their arguments, an express warrant not to include children in the covenant. Nor is there evidence that can be deduced by analogy or inference from Scripture that this is the case. So in the absence of repeal it must be concluded that the command to administer the sign of this covenant to infants has not been revoked and is still in force. An express command authorising the baptism of infants would therefore be superfluous.
That covenant blessings for infants were to be continued into the New Testament dispensation is given the strongest support by Christ who says, “Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not, for of such is the Kingdom of God.” (Matt. 9:14). The kingdom here mentioned is the visible church and this kingdom was to be taken from the Jews and given to the Gentiles according to Christ’s prophecy, “The Kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.” The children mentioned in Matt. 9:14 include infants as Luke 18:15, a parallel passage, informs us that the children were babes i.e. little infants. Nor is Christ simply illustrating that the Kingdom of God is made up of those who have a childlike spirit of simplicity and humility. In these words, “of such is the Kingdom of God”, Jesus is asserting clearly that little children are members of His kingdom. This Old Testament precept is therefore expressly affirmed in the New Testament. Now while it is not claimed that Jesus baptised these infants He is affirming that they do belong to His Kingdom and are therefore fit subjects to receive the sign to such as belong to that Kingdom i.e. baptism in the New Testament dispensation, as it was circumcision in the Old Testament.
In the light of baptism continuing to be the sign of covenant blessings, household baptism mentioned three times would have included infants if there were any in these households. However, no conclusive proof can be brought as evidence as far as household baptism is concerned. All that can be said is that it would be unusual if none of these households had infants. T. E. Watson endeavours to abolish this evidence by directing attention to the words that say they rejoiced and/or believed and were baptised. (Acts 16:33 and 18:8). Therefore infants were excluded because they could not believe or rejoice. But this argument has already been shown to be false.
The next question that arises is, who are they who have a right to baptism? Adults outside the visible church are not to be baptised until they profess their faith in Christ and obedience to Him; but the infants of such as are members of the visible church are to be baptised. Applicants for baptism should be persons who profess a competent knowledge of the fundamental truths of Christianity and of the fact that he makes a consistent profession of faith and promise of obedience to the Lord, being subject to church authority. Thus the applicant’s outward life must not contradict this profession. (A. A. Hodge, The Confession of Faith, p.334). In making such matters clear the church officers it seems, do not enquire into the personal experimental nature of the applicant’s profession as would be necessary for his admission to the Lord’s Supper.