BY THE REV. ALEXANDER MACKAY, OBAN.
IN answering the above question in the affirmative, we shall have to notice, first, two contrary arguments often used by Baptists, which we can show to be unscriptural.
First Argument: No Express Command
Their first argument is that infants have no right to baptism, because there is no express command to that effect in God’s Word. When Baptists say that there is no express command for infant baptism, they mean there is no command, “in so many words,” as “Thou shalt baptise infants.” Concerning this, we might say that such a statement is too assuming, for it seems to dictate in what way an all-wise God should speak to men. It is also too narrow, as it implies that we are not able to understand the will of the Lord, unless He speaks in one particular way. But, again, this argument is unsound, because women are admitted by all to the Lord’s Table, and yet there is no express command to that effect in God’s Word. There is no necessity to dwell on this argument, for it is sufficient to say that, if there is no express command for infant baptism, so it may be said that neither is there any express command or example for female communion, and yet Baptists admit female communion as well as other Christians, against their own dictum regarding infant baptism.
Second Argument: Faith and Repentance Required
Their second argument is that the Scriptures require faith and repentance universally as requisites to baptism; but as infants cannot have these, they are not proper subjects of baptism. The Baptists say, “Infants cannot believe and cannot repent; and none should be baptised without faith.” The most expeditious way of destroying this argument would be this. They say, that the Scriptures require faith and repentance in order to baptism, but “of whom?” it may be asked. The answer is, “Of adults,” for the Scriptures never require faith and repentance of infants in order to anything. The argument then might be put in this way, “The Scriptures require faith and repentance of adults in order to baptism.” Now, infants have nothing to do with this argument.
The fallaciousness of it may be better seen by putting the argument into syllogistic form thus:—The Scriptures require faith and repentance of adults, in order to baptism. Infants cannot have faith and repentance. Therefore, infants are unfit subjects of that ordinance.
Now, this is a glaring sophism, with adults in one proposition and infants in the other. But this argument may be further examined, although what has been said above is quite sufficient to confute the Baptist view. The fallacy of the argument lies in the principle of it, namely, that something is said of baptism in relation to some of its subjects (adults) which will not agree with infants, and that, therefore, infants are excluded from baptism. Let us test this argument by God’s Word:—
The Circumcision of Infants
(a) The circumcision of infants. That infants were circumcised is a fact. That there was an express command to that effect is another fact. That infants were proper subjects of that rite is a self-evident truth, yet there was something true of circumcision in regard to some of its subjects which did not agree with infants, namely, those who were circumcised were debtors to do the whole law; they came under conscious and intelligent obligation to keep the law, for, if they did not keep the law, their circumcision became uncircumcision. Now, did it agree with an infant to become a debtor after this manner? Infants could not become conscious debtors; they could not keep the law. Thus it is quite clear that something was said of circumcision which did not agree with infants. In this respect baptism and circumcision are on a level, for there is something said concerning both which will not agree with infants. So it follows that the Baptist argument is void, because infants were circumcised, and yet something was true of circumcision which did not agree with infants.
The Salvation of Infants
(b) The salvation of infants. That infants may be the subjects of salvation is universally admitted; that those subjects who die in infancy are actually glorified, is also granted; and yet there is something said of salvation which cannot by any means agree with infants—”He that believeth shall be saved; he that believeth not shall be damned.”
This being the case, we may say that, “If infants must not be baptised, because there is something said of baptism which does not agree with infants, then by the same rule we may say that infants cannot be saved because there is something said of salvation which does not agree with infants, when we find the argument proving against a scriptural truth, namely, the salvation of infants.
We find, then, that the two main arguments of our opponents against infant baptism are unsound. They cannot stand the light of common sense, not to speak of God’s Word.
Let us now examine the arguments for infant baptism, and, in doing so, let us notice: (1) that the identity of the Church can be traced from the days of Abraham down to the close of the Apostolic era; (2) that infants were constituted members of the Church under the Old Testament dispensation; (3) that infants are not excluded under the New Testament dispensation; (4) that infants are members under the New Testament dispensation; and (5) that they are either constituted members through the ordinance of baptism, or without it. (6) Conclusion.
1. The Identity of the Church
(1) Before the days of Abraham, God had a Church in the world, but, from the days of Abraham to the coming of Christ, the Church of God was confined to one nation, the Jews, the posterity of Abraham. After the coming of Christ, the Church was extended to all nations, yet the Church remained the same Church, although the way of worshipping God was altered. To say that the Church under the new dispensation was not the same as that under the old, would be like saying that a man was not the same person, because he had changed his apparel. As proof of the identity of the Church, let us consider the New Testament Scriptures. Christ says to the Jews that the Kingdom would be taken from them, and given to another nation. Now, this meant what actually happened, that the Church was not to be any longer among them, but that it would be given to the Gentiles. This actually took place. The Jews rejected Christ, and the Gentiles accepted Him, so they lost the Kingdom, or the Church. Then, again, Paul, in speaking of the same thing, the casting away of the Jews, refers to the matter as something which did by no means end the Old Testament Church, for, in speaking of the New Testament Church, he speaks of it as the branch which was grafted into the old root; or, in other words, he identifies the New Testament Church with the old. It was the vine which was brought from Egypt by God’s Almighty Hand, into which the Gentiles were grafted, so that it is beyond doubt established by God’s Word that the Church remains the same under both dispensations. So much then for the identity of the Church.
2. Infants as Old Testament Church Members
(2) Infants were members of the Church under the Old Testament dispensation. Our Baptist friends themselves admit this, but proof may be given. Circumcision was a seal of the covenant of grace in the Church under the old dispensation, and every man-child in Israel was commanded by the Lord to be circumcised. In this ordinance the child was dedicated to the Lord by the rite of circumcision; and circumcision can be as easily proved to have been a religious rite as baptism is a religious rite. In Col. ii. 11, 12, we have circumcision and baptism spoken of as standing on the same level with each other, as being each of them of the same religious kind.
3. Infants Not Excluded Under New Testament
(3) Infants were not excluded under the New Testament dispensation. This is a most significant point in defending the right of infants to the ordinance of baptism; for, as we have seen above, infants were members of the Church from the days of Abraham to the days of Christ, and if their right to membership were set aside, it must have been set aside by Christ and His apostles. But we see no such thing in the New Testament. The Baptists admit this, and take refuge in the qualifications of faith and repentance, necessary in order to baptism, but we have seen already that infants have nothing to do with these qualifications.
4. Infants as New Testament Church Members
(4) Infants were members of the New Testament Church. Our Lord and His Apostles take special notice of infants as to their relationship to the kingdom of God or His Church. In Luke ix. 47, 48, Jesus took a child, and set him by Him, and said, “Whosoever shall receive this child in my name receiveth me.” Now, what Jesus said about this child, applied to other children, for the words of Mark are, “Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name.” Now, to receive a person is to treat him suitably to his station. “He came unto His own, and His own received Him not.” “Him that is rich in the faith, receive ye.” To receive a person in the name of Christ is to treat him as in visible union with Him. And this cannot be explained in any other way than by holding that God had long before constituted infants visible members of His own Church, and still continues to them the same place and privilege. In Mark x. 14, “But when Jesus saw it, He was much displeased, and said, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of God.” Now was it the Church on earth, or the Church glorified, to which the infants here referred to belonged? If they belonged to the Church on earth, then the fact of their membership is established. The Baptists say it is a state of glory which is meant here, and this is granting the greater, but denying the less. If infants belong to a state of glory which is the greater, then much more do they belong to the Church on earth. Coming to the Apostles, let us note one passage only, namely, Acts ii. 38, 39, “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.” Here we have Peter speaking to Jews and saying that the promise is unto them and to their children, as it was to Abraham and to his seed or children; and the promise was also to them who were afar off, namely, the Gentiles and their children; even as many as the Lord our God shall call of all nations. That this is the right exegesis of the above passage cannot be disproved by learning, argument, or Scripture.
5. Admission via Baptism
(5) Infants were admitted, by the ordinance of baptism, to church membership, or without it. If infants had a right to church membership, then they were admitted to church membership through the same ordinance as adults; for otherwise, if infants are received as members without baptism, so may adults which no one will affirm.
6. Conclusion
(6) Conclusion.—Since infants have a right to membership, and all who have such right must be received as members, and none should be received without baptism, then it follows, that as infants have a right to be received, they must also have a right to be baptized; because they cannot be received without baptism.