Baptism: A Reply by F. Windridge.*
*It has been sent to all our ministers; and to us it is a confused mass of quotations, set forth in much disorder. Let our readers peruse carefully the article in this issue on “Sprinkling in Baptism”.—Editor.
This is a booklet of some forty pages, recently issued by a Strict Baptist in England and purporting to be a reply to “The Sacrament of Baptism” by the Rev. John Colquhoun.
In this work the author maintains to his own satisfaction, and of his denominational viewpoint, that, as to the ordinance of Baptism, it shall be administered only to adults upon a profession of faith and that “immersion” is its Scriptural mode. He says: “Infant sprinkling must appear to me nothing less than a high insult offered to Jehovah in the name of the Holy Three.” (page 26).
On general grounds Windridge’s “reply” appears to lose much of its effectiveness in the eyes of anyone versed in this particular controversy, because the following distinctions are nowhere made evident by him:—
1. That Presbyterians maintain, equally with Baptists, that no adults shall receive baptism, except upon a suitable profession of faith.
1. That the baptism of infants is, therefore, a further and distinct use of this Sacrament.
2. That in terms of the Westminster Confession, Presbyterians do not condemn baptism by immersion as invalid.
3. Our abhorrence of hymns and all human compositions in the Public Worship of God is not evident, unless, indeed, it is denied altogether (page 28).
Also, the general structure and argument of this booklet would appear to be vitiated by the disregard in large measure of two great principles, necessary to our evaluation of what the truth committed to the Church is: (i) “The supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined . . . can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the scripture.” (Conf. of Faith I, 10). Mr. Windridge lays great weight upon his view of history—that Infant Baptism was unknown in the church of the first centuries. Although this could be proved to be fact (which is in no way evident), it will not provide firm ground on which to build, in view of the plain intimation of Scripture, that the visible church would soon, in point of fact, be widely and deeply corrupted. When reformation, from the many abuses that had been introduced into the Church did come, it was by way of a new appeal to Scripture and not to history. (ii) The second principle is, that the Church is to search the Scriptures in order to a progressively fuller and clearer understanding of their meaning. And therefore, the researches of even an Augustine or a Calvin in the Scriptures can be taken a stage further, and that in the interests of the truth itself.
Now to mention a particular issue. The Presbyterian defence of the proper baptism of infants is founded in large measure upon the interpretation of Scripture to the effect that in the one indivisible Church since Abraham, Baptism has replaced Circumcision. It is argued in the present work, that Circumcision belongs only to the temporal covenant that God made with Abraham, so that, consequently Circumcision was at an end when the commonwealth of Israel was abolished. (page 12). The help of Charles Hodge, D.D., is elicited in support of this argument by the author; yet Hodge writes as follows—”that circumcision was not the sign exclusively of the national covenant with the Hebrews, is plain because it was enjoined upon Abraham and continued in practice hundreds of years before the giving of the law on Mount Sinai, when the people were inaugurated as a nation.” (Systematic Theology vol. iii, page 552). He then gives further proof from the New Testament, including Rom. 4: 11—”he (Abraham) received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised.”
Many other matters might be raised—e.g. Cyprian, whose use of Infant Baptism is unquestioned, is in this booklet termed an “innovator;” whereas the testimony of Principal W. Cunningham is rather different—”Cyprian is altogether one of the finest characters we meet with in the history of the early Church. He shows less tendency to mix up spiritual truth with philosophical speculations and had more of the spirit of the gospel.” But what has been said may show that this “Reply” is in no sense final. It is a challenge to us to search our foundations and only so far does it provide any benefit.—Rev. Alex. Murray, Applecross. 6th August, 1957.