Infant Baptism Quotes

The Church does not dispense the sacrament of baptism in order to acquire for herself an increase in membership but in order to consecrate a human being to God and to communicate to that person the divine gift of birth from God.

It would be unjust toward children to introduce them to Christian teaching and existence only as little pagans and catechumens, in order to leave it up to them to choose the Faith on their own responsibility at a point in time difficult to determine.

You were baptized?" "My sister told me that yes, Father baptized me shortly after birth. My mother was a Protestant of a faith that deplored infant baptism, so they had a quarrel about it." The Bishop held out his hand to lift the Speaker to his feet. The Speaker chuckled. "Imagine. A closet Catholic and a lapsed Mormon, quarreling over religious procedures that they both claimed not to believe in.

At present, the successful office-seeker is a good deal like the center of the earth; he weighs nothing himself, but draws everything else to him. There are so many societies, so many churches, so many isms, that it is almost impossible for an independent man to succeed in a political career. Candidates are forced to pretend that they are catholics with protestant proclivities, or christians with liberal tendencies, or temperance men who now and then take a glass of wine, or, that although not members of any church their wives are, and that they subscribe liberally to all. The result of all this is that we reward hypocrisy and elect men entirely destitute of real principle; and this will never change until the people become grand enough to allow each other to do their own thinking. Our government should be entirely and purely secular. The religious views of a candidate should be kept entirely out of sight. He should not be compelled to give his opinion as to the inspiration of the bible, the propriety of infant baptism, or the immaculate conception. All these things are private and personal. The people ought to be wise enough to select as their officers men who know something of political affairs, who comprehend the present greatness, and clearly perceive the future grandeur of our country. If we were in a storm at sea, with deck wave-washed and masts strained and bent with storm, and it was necessary to reef the top sail, we certainly would not ask the brave sailor who volunteered to go aloft, what his opinion was on the five points of Calvinism. Our government has nothing to do with religion. It is neither christian nor pagan; it is secular. But as long as the people persist in voting for or against men on account of their religious views, just so long will hypocrisy hold place and power. Just so long will the candidates crawl in the dust—hide their opinions, flatter those with whom they differ, pretend to agree with those whom they despise; and just so long will honest men be trampled under foot.

Manz, formerly one of Zwingli's closest allies, held that there was no biblical warrant for infant baptism. Refusing to recant his views, he was tied up and drowned in the River Limmat.

THERE CAME A TIME many years ago when I decided to agree to the baptism of my firstborn. It was a question of pleasing his mother’s family. Nonetheless, I had to endure some teasing from Christian friends—how could the old atheist have sold out so easily? I decided to go deadpan and say, Well, I don’t want his infant soul to go to hell or purgatory for want of some holy water. And it was often value for money: The faces of several believers took on a distinct look of discomfort at the literal rendition of their own supposed view.

Sexual intercourse was taboo on the Lord’s Day. The Puritans believed that children were born on the same day of the week as when they had been conceived. Unlucky infants who entered the world on the Sabbath were sometimes denied baptism because of their parents’ presumed sin in copulating on a Sunday. For many years Sudbury’s minister Israel Loring sternly refused to baptize children born on Sunday, until one terrible Sabbath when his own wife gave birth to twins!18 Altogether, the Puritans created a sabbatical rhythm of unique intensity in the time ways of their culture.19

It is not necessary that faith and repentance should always precede baptism. They are only required from those whose age makes them capable of both. It will be sufficient, then, if, after infants have grown up, they exhibit the power of their baptism." - John Calvin

I have generally been denominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious I am no Christian, except mere infant baptism make me one; and as to being a Deist, I know not, strictly speaking, whether I am one or not, for I have never read their writings; mine will therefore determine the matter; for I have not in the least disguised my sentiments, but have written freely without any conscious knowledge of prejudice for, or against any man, sectary or party whatever; but wish that good sense, truth and virtue may be promoted and flourish in the world, to the detection of delusion, superstition, and false religion; and therefore my errors in the succeeding treatise, which may be rationally pointed out, will be readily rescinded.

As far as infant baptism is concerned, it must be insisted that the sacrament should be administered only where there is a firm faith present which remembers Christ’s deed of salvation wrought for us once and for all. That can only happen in a living Christian community. To baptize infants without a Church is not only an abuse of the sacrament, it betokens a disgusting frivolity in dealing with the souls of the children themselves. For baptism can never be repeated.

For the sacrament of baptism; how cruel are men grown to their little infants, by keeping of them from the seal of entrance into the kingdom of heaven, and making their children to be just in the same condition with the children of Turks and Infidels?

Both Jews and Muslims believe that salt protects against the evil eye. The Book of Ezekial mentions rubbing newborn infants with salt to protect them from evil. The practice in Europe of protecting newborns either by putting salt on their tongues or by submerging them in saltwater is thought to predate Christian baptism. In France, until the practice was abolished in 1408, children were salted until they were baptized. In parts of Europe, especially Holland, the practice was modified to placing salt in the cradle with the child.

Hester, meanwhile, says we should live all of life back to front. We should be born old and age younger. Our baptism should be a ritual of our funeral. We should die as infants, content in our mothers' arms, having lost all our learning and all sense of disappointment. If only we could die, she says, not knowing we'd ever grieved.

By infant baptism a person is committed, while unconscious, to a certain church; he is made a member of that church. Now, unless that church is infallible, it has no right to make a person a member without his consent; for, it may commit him to an alliance with error, and to the defenee of it. But all churches are fallible, they may err; a person who is made a member of such a church in infancy, may discover an error in that church when he arrives at maturity. Without his own consent, he has been committed to that error; he was not left free to choose, where it is evident, from the nature of things, a choice might have been exercised. Pedobaptism is therefore inconsistent with liberty.

She climbed down the cliffs after tying her sweater loosely around her waist. Down below she could see nothing but jagged rocks and waves. She was creful, but I watched her feet more than the view she saw- I worried about her slipping. My mother's desire to reach those waves, touch her feet to another ocean on the other side of the country, was all she was thinking of- the pure baptismal goal of it. Whoosh and you can start over again. Or was life more like the horrible game in gym that has you running from one side of an enclosed space to another, picking up and setting down wooden blocks without end? She was thinking reach the waves, the waves, the waves, and I was watching her navigate the rocks, and when we heard her we did so together- looking up in shock. It was a baby on the beach. In among the rocks was a sandy cove, my mother now saw, and crawling across the sand on a blanket was a baby in knitted pink cap and singlet and boots. She was alone on the blanket with a stuffed white toy- my mother thought a lamb. With their backs to my mother as she descended were a group of adults-very official and frantic-looking- wearing black and navy with cool slants to their hats and boots. Then my wildlife photographer's eye saw the tripods and silver circles rimmed by wire, which, when a young man moved them left or right, bounced light off or on the baby on her blanket. My mother started laughing, but only one assistant turned to notice her up among the rocks; everyone else was too busy. This was an ad for something. I imagined, but what? New fresh infant girls to replace your own? As my mother laughed and I watched her face light up, I also saw it fall into strange lines. She saw the waves behind the girl child and how both beautiful and intoxicating they were- they could sweep up so softly and remove this gril from the beach. All the stylish people could chase after her, but she would drown in a moment- no one, not even a mother who had every nerve attuned to anticipate disaster, could have saved her if the waves leapt up, if life went on as usual and freak accidents peppered a calm shore.

MOTHER. I do not believe that there is anything sweeter in the world than the ideas which awake in a mother’s heart at the sight of her child’s tiny shoe; especially if it is a shoe for festivals, for Sunday, for baptism, the shoe embroidered to the very sole, a shoe in which the infant has not yet taken a step. That shoe has so much grace and daintiness, it is so impossible for it to walk, that it seems to the mother as though she saw her child. She smiles upon it, she kisses it, she talks to it; she asks herself whether there can actually be a foot so tiny; and if the child be absent, the pretty shoe suffices to place the sweet and fragile creature before her eyes. She thinks she sees it, she does see it, complete, living, joyous, with its delicate hands, its round head, its pure lips, its serene eyes whose white is blue. If it is in winter, it is yonder, crawling on the carpet, it is laboriously climbing upon an ottoman, and the mother trembles lest it should approach the fire. If it is summer time, it crawls about the yard, in the garden, plucks up the grass between the paving-stones, gazes innocently at the big dogs, the big horses, without fear, plays with the shells, with the flowers, and makes the gardener grumble because he finds sand in the flower-beds and earth in the paths. Everything laughs, and shines and plays around it, like it, even the breath of air and the ray of sun which vie with each other in disporting among the silky ringlets of its hair. The shoe shows all this to the mother, and makes her heart melt as fire melts wax.

Theological controversies over the centuries have sometimes been treated as if they were really important even though they were also often arcane. For instance, a Trinitarian conflict split the Western and Eastern churches in 1054: Does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father and the Son, or from the Father only? In the 1600s, “supralapsarianism” versus “infralapsarianism” almost divided the Reformed tradition. At issue was whether God decided to send a messiah (Jesus) before the first sin (because God knew it would happen) or only after it had happened (because only then was it necessary). More familiarly: infant baptism or adult baptism? Christians have often thought it is important to believe the right things. In a broader sense, theology refers to “what Christians think.” In this sense, all Christians have a theology—a basic, even if often simple, understanding—whether they are aware of it or not. In this broader sense, theology does matter. There is “bad” theology, by which I mean an understanding of Christianity that is seriously misleading, with unfortunate and sometimes cruel consequences. But the task of theology is not primarily to construct an intellectually satisfying set of correct beliefs. Its

authority. What we face now is the “sinner’s prayer.” And I am here to tell you, if there is anything I have declared war on, it is the sinner’s prayer. Yes, in the same way that dependence upon infant baptism for salvation,[29] in my opinion, was the golden calf [30] of the Reformation, the sinner’s prayer is the golden calf of today for the Baptists, the Evangelicals, and everyone else who has followed them. The sinner’s prayer has sent more people to hell than anything on the face of the earth! You say, “How can you say such a thing?” I answer: Go with me to Scripture and show me, please! I would love for you to show me where anyone evangelized that way. The Scripture does not tell us that Jesus Christ came to the nation of Israel and said, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand, now who would like to ask me into their hearts? I see that hand.” That is not what it says. He said, “Repent and believe the gospel” (Mar 1:15)! Men today are trusting in the fact that at least one time in their life they prayed a prayer, and someone told them they were saved because they were sincere enough. And so if you ask them, “Are you saved?” they do not say, “Yes I am, because I am looking unto Jesus and there is mighty evidence giving me assurance of being born again.” No!—they say instead, “One time in my life I prayed a prayer.” Now they live like devils, but they prayed a prayer!

When Augustine lamented the soft-heartedness that made Origen believe that demons, heathens, and (most preposterously of all) unbaptized babies might ultimately be spared the torments of eternal fire, he made clear how the moral imagination must bend and twist in order to absorb such beliefs [in an eternal hell]. Pascal, in assuring us that our existence is explicable only in light of a belief in the eternal and condign torment of babies who die before reaching the baptismal font, shows us that there is often no meaningful distinction between perfect faith and perfect nihilism. Calvin, in telling us that hell is copiously populated with infants not a cubit long, merely reminds us that, within a certain traditional understanding of grace and predestination, the choice to worship God rather than the devil is at most a matter of prudence. So it is that, for many Christians down the years, the rationale of evangelization has been a desperate race to save as many souls as possible from God. (from Radical Orthodoxy 3.1 (2015): 1-17)

God requires integrity and holiness of life; he indicated by the symbol how this could be attained, that is, by cutting off in man whatever is born of the flesh, for his whole nature had become vicious. He therefore reminded Abraham by the external sign, that he was spiritually to cut off the corruption of the flesh; and to this Moses has also alluded in De 10:16. And to show that it was not the work of man, but of God, he commanded tender infants to be circumcised, who, on account of their age, could not have performed such a command. Moses has indeed expressly mentioned spiritual circumcision as the work of divine power, as you will find in De 30:6, where he says, “The Lord will circumcise thine heart:” and the Prophets afterwards declared the same thing much more clearly. As there are two points in baptism now, so there were formerly in circumcision; for it was a symbol of a new life, and also of the remission of sins. But the fact as to Abraham himself, that righteousness preceded circumcision, is not always the case in sacraments, as it is evident from the case of Isaac and his posterity: but God intended to give such an instance once at the beginning, that no one might ascribe salvation to external signs.

Far more damaging to Calvin’s reputation was the case of Michael Servetus. An accomplished physician, skilled cartographer, and eclectic theologian from Spain, Servetus held maverick (and sometimes unbalanced) views on many points of Christian doctrine. In 1531, he published Seven Books on the Errors of the Trinity, enraging both Catholics and Protestants, Calvin among them. At one point, Servetus took up residence in Vienne, a suburb of Lyon about ninety miles from Geneva, where, under an assumed name, he began turning out heterodox books while also practicing medicine. His magnum opus, The Restitution of Christianity—a rebuttal of Calvin’s Institutes—rejected predestination, denied original sin, called infant baptism diabolical, and further deprecated the Trinity. Servetus imprudently sent Calvin a copy. Calvin sent back a copy of his Institutes. Servetus filled its margins with insulting comments, then returned it. A bitter exchange of letters followed, in which Servetus announced that the Archangel Michael was girding himself for Armageddon and that he, Servetus, would serve as his armor-bearer. Calvin sent Servetus’s letters to a contact in Vienne, who passed them on to Catholic inquisitors in Lyon. Servetus was promptly arrested and sent to prison, but after a few days he escaped by jumping over a prison wall. After spending three months wandering around France, he decided to seek refuge in Naples. En route, he inexplicably stopped in Geneva. Arriving on a Saturday, he attended Calvin’s lecture the next day. Though disguised, Servetus was recognized by some refugees from Lyon and immediately arrested. Calvin instructed one of his disciples to file capital charges against him with the magistrates for his various blasphemies. After a lengthy trial and multiple examinations, Servetus was condemned for writing against the Trinity and infant baptism and sentenced to death. He asked to be beheaded rather than burned, but the council refused, and on October 27, 1553, Servetus, with a copy of the Restitution tied to his arm, was sent to the stake. Shrieking in agony, he took half an hour to die. Calvin approved. “God makes clear that the false prophet is to be stoned without mercy,” he explained in Defense of the Orthodox Trinity Against the Errors of Michael Servetus. “We are to crush beneath our heel all affections of nature when his honor is involved. The father should not spare the child, nor the brother his brother, nor the husband his own wife or the friend who is dearer to him than life.

It is a hot summer day in Tennessee in the midst of the sixth decade of this century. The girl has climbed the fence to get to the swimming hole she has visited so many summers of her life in the time before this part of the land was enclosed. She stands now at the edge of it. Her body is sticky with heat. The surface of the water moves slightly. Sunlight shimmers and dances in a green reflection that seems as she stares at it to pull her in even before her skin is wet with it. Drops of water on the infant’s head. All the body immersed for baptism. Do these images come to her as she sinks into the coolness? The washing of hands before Sunday’s midday meal. All our sins washed away. Water was once the element for purification. But at the bottom of this pool, There is no telling what is there now. This is what the girl’s father will say to her finally: corroded cans of chemical waste, some radioactive substances. That was why they put the fence there. She is not thinking of that now. The words have not yet been said, and so for her no trouble exists here. The water holds up her body. She is weightless in this fulsome element, the waves her body makes embracing her with their own benediction. Beneath her in the shadowy green, she feels the depth of the pond. In this coolness as the heat mercifully abates, her mind is set free, to dream as the water dreams.

When the sun had set and darkness sheltered her from the eyes of the curious, Ruth Ben Shoushan walked into the sea, the nameless infant tight against her breast, until she stood waist-deep. She unwrapped him, throwing the swaddling cloth over her head. His brown eyes blinked at her, and his small fists, free of constriction, punched at the air. “Sorry, my little one,” she said gently, and then thrust him under the dark surface. The water closed around him, touching every inch of his flesh. She had a firm grip around his upper arm. She let go. The water had to take him. She looked down at the small, struggling form, her face determined, even as she sobbed. The swell rose and slapped against her. The tug of the receding wave was about to pull the infant away. Ruti reached out and grasped him firmly in her two hands. As she lifted him from the sea, water sluiced off his bare, shining skin in a shower of brightness. She held him up to the stars. The roar in her head was louder now than the surf. She cried out, into the wind, speaking the words for the infant in her hands. “Shema Yisrael, Adonai eloheinu, Adonai echad.” Then she drew the cloth from her head and wrapped the baby. All over Aragon that night, Jews were being forced to the baptismal font, driven to conversion by fear of exile. Ruti, exultant, defiant, had made a Gentile into a Jew. Because his mother was not Jewish, a ritual immersion had been necessary. And now it was done.

In a sense the rise of Anabaptism was no surprise. Most revolutionary movements produce a wing of radicals who feel called of God to reform the reformation. And that is what Anabaptism was, a voice calling the moderate reformers to strike even more deeply at the foundations of the old order. Like most counterculture movements, the Anabaptists lacked cohesiveness. No single body of doctrine and no unifying organization prevailed among them. Even the name Anabaptist was pinned on them by their enemies. It meant rebaptizer and was intended to associate the radicals with heretics in the early church and subject them to severe persecution. The move succeeded famously. Actually, the Anabaptists rejected all thoughts of rebaptism because they never considered the ceremonial sprinkling they received in infancy as valid baptism. They much preferred Baptists as a designation. To most of them, however, the fundamental issue was not baptism. It was the nature of the church and its relation to civil governments. They had come to their convictions like most other Protestants: through Scripture. Luther had taught that common people have a right to search the Bible for themselves. It had been his guide to salvation; why not theirs? As a result, little groups of Anabaptist believers gathered about their Bibles. They discovered a different world in the pages of the New Testament. They found no state-church alliance, no Christendom. Instead they discovered that the apostolic churches were companies of committed believers, communities of men and women who had freely and personally chosen to follow Jesus. And for the sixteenth century, that was a revolutionary idea. In spite of Luther’s stress on personal religion, Lutheran churches were established churches. They retained an ordained clergy who considered the whole population of a given territory members of their church. The churches looked to the state for salary and support. Official Protestantism seemed to differ little from official Catholicism. Anabaptists wanted to change all that. Their goal was the “restitution” of apostolic Christianity, a return to churches of true believers. In the early church, they said, men and women who had experienced personal spiritual regeneration were the only fit subjects for baptism. The apostolic churches knew nothing of the practice of baptizing infants. That tradition was simply a convenient device for perpetuating Christendom: nominal but spiritually impotent Christian society. The true church, the radicals insisted, is always a community of saints, dedicated disciples in a wicked world. Like the missionary monks of the Middle Ages, the Anabaptists wanted to shape society by their example of radical discipleship—if necessary, even by death. They steadfastly refused to be a part of worldly power including bearing arms, holding political office, and taking oaths. In the sixteenth century this independence from social and civic society was seen as inflammatory, revolutionary, or even treasonous.

An edict of Duke Johann of Cleve, Jülich, Berg, and Mark, runs as follows:[77] “Although it is known what is to be done with the Anabaptists… yet we will, in conjunction with the Archbishop of Cologne, announce it by this edict, so that no one may be excused through lack of knowledge. Hereafter all who baptize again and are baptized again, as well as all who hold or teach that infant baptism is without value, shall be brought from life to death, and punished…. In the same way all who hold or teach that in the most highly esteemed sacrament of the altar the true body and the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are not actually present, but only figuratively… shall not be endured, but shall be banished from our Principalities, so that if after three days they are there they shall be punished in body and life… and so treated as is announced with respect to the Anabaptists.” Records are preserved of the burning, drowning, and beheading that followed.

Matthias Zerfass, of his own accord, acknowledged that he was a teacher among them, and remained firm and patient under torture, and was then beheaded. He wrote from prison: “The chief object of our torture has been that we should say how many of us were teachers, and reveal their names and addresses…. I was to acknowledge the authorities as Christian and that infant baptism is right; I pressed my lips together, yielded myself to God, suffered patiently, and thought of the Lord’s word when He said, ‘Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Ye are My friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.’ It looks as though I have still much to suffer, but the Lord alone has it in His hand, and I can pray for nothing except that His will be done.” An instruction was issued as follows: “In order to arrest the leaders, teachers, bush-preachers, and corner-preachers of the sectaries… officials shall send spies into the hedges, fens, and moors, especially at the approach of the more important festivals, and when there is full and continued moonlight, in order to discover their secret meeting-places.” Yet in 1534 the Bishop of Münster, in writing to the Pope, bore testimony to the excellent lives of the Anabaptists.

The promises in baptism indicate a very different theology of the family, which recognizes that ‘families work well when we do not expect them to give us all we need.’”14 But whether we baptize our infants or not, the principle is the same: our active participation in the church—and our willingness to see it as home—relieves some of the onerous burdens of childrearing, often made heaviest by our sense of limitation. We can’t parent alone. And we aren’t meant to. We have friends—better, brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles—to help carry some of the worry and weight of the family housekeeping. And as I’ve learned from recent research, the most important predictor of whether children from Christian families keep their faith into adulthood is the number of multigenerational connections they enjoy at church. Teenagers may not need a youth group populated by hundreds of peers, but they do need other Christian adults in their church to take an interest in them and communicate that they belong.

Over time, however, the Christendom shift involved150: • The adoption of Christianity as the official religion of city, state, or empire. • Movement of the church from the margins to the center of society. • The creation and progressive development of a Christian culture or civilization. • The assumption that all citizens (except Jews) were Christian by birth. • The development of a “sacral society,” corpus Christianum, where there was no freedom of religion and political power was divinely authenticated. • The definition of “orthodoxy” as the belief all shared, determined by powerful church leaders with state support. • Imposition, by legislation and custom, of a supposedly Christian morality on the entire society (though normally Old Testament morality was applied). • Infant baptism as the symbol of obligatory incorporation into Christian society. • The defense of Christianity by legal sanctions to restrain heresy, immorality, and schism. • A hierarchical ecclesiastical system, based on a diocesan and parish arrangement, analogous to the state hierarchy and buttressed by state support. • A generic distinction between clergy and laity, and relegation of laity to a largely passive role. • Two-tier ethics, with higher standards of discipleship (“ evangelical counsels”) expected of clergy and those in religious orders. • Sunday as an official holiday and obligatory church attendance, with penalties for noncompliance. • The requirement of oaths of allegiance and oaths in law courts to encourage truth-telling. • The construction of massive and ornate church buildings and the formation of huge congregations. • Increased wealth for the church and obligatory tithes to fund the system. • Division of the globe into “Christendom” and “heathendom” and wars waged in the name of Christ and the church. • Use of political and military force to impose Christianity, regardless of personal conviction. • Reliance on the Old Testament, rather than the New, to justify these changes.

The first clear reference to the baptism of infants is in a writing of Tertullian in 197, in which he condemns the practice beginning to be introduced of baptising the dead and of baptising infants.

Christ commands those who believe, to be baptized. Pedobaptists adopt a system, which tends to preclude the baptism of believers. They baptize the involuntary infant, and deprive him of the privilege of ever professing his faith in the appointed way. If this system were universally adopted, it would banish believer’s baptism out of the world.

Bossuet. ‘Experience has shown that all the attempts of the Reformed to confound the Anabaptists, by the scripture, have been weak; and, therefore, they are, at last, obliged to allege to them the practice of the church.’161 Chambers. ‘As none but adults are capable of believing, they’ the German Baptists, ‘argued, that no others are capable of baptism; especially, as there is no passage in all the New Testament, where the baptism of infants is clearly enjoined. Calvin, and other writers against them, are pretty much embarrassed, to answer this argument; and are obliged to have recourse to tradition, and the practice of the primitive church.’162 Also the Oxford Divines, in a convocation, held one thousand, six hundred and forty-seven, acknowledged, ‘that, without the consentaneous judgment of the universal church, they should be at a loss, when they are called upon for proof, in the point of infant baptism.

The Christian writers of the first century, who immediately succeeded the apostles, Barnabas, Hermas, Clemens Romanus, Ignatius, and Polycarp, usually called, by way of distinction, apostolical fathers, frequently mention the baptism of believers; but, like the inspired penmen, are entirely silent on the subject of infant baptism. The Christian writers of the second century, Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Tatian, Irenæus, and Clemens Alexandrinus, frequently mention the baptism of believers; but, like the inspired penmen, and the apostolical fathers, never mention infant baptism.

The first Christian writer, in the beginning of the third century, Tertullian of Carthage, the oldest Latin father, whose writings are extant, opposed the baptism of infants, which in the words of Professor Venema, ‘he certainly would not have done, if it had been a tradition, and a public custom of the church, seeing he was very tenacious of traditions; nor had it been a tradition, would he have failed to mention it.’170 His words lead us to conclude, that infant baptism was then a novel practice, just beginning and approved by very few.

St. Paul. ‘As many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ’.182 Erasmus. ‘Paul does not seem,’ in Rom. v. 14, ‘to treat about infants.—It was not yet the custom for infants to be baptized.’183 Luther. ‘It cannot be proved by the sacred scripture, that infant baptism was instituted by Christ, or begun by the first Christians after the apostles.’184 M. De La Roque. ‘The primitive church did not baptize infants: and the learned Grotius proves it, in his annotations on the Gospel.’185 Ludovicus Vives. ‘No one, in former times, was admitted to the sacred baptistery, except he was of age, understood what the mystical water meant, desired to be washed in it, and expressed that desire more than once.’186 Chambers. ‘It appears, that in the primitive times none were baptized but adults.’187 Bishop Barlow. ‘I do believe and know, that there is neither precept nor example in scripture, for pedobaptism, nor any evidence for it, for about two hundred years after Christ.’188 Salmasius and Suicerus. ‘In the first two centuries, no one was baptized, except, being instructed in the faith and acquainted with the doctrine of Christ, he was able to profess himself a believer; because of those words, He that believeth, and is baptized.

Interestingly, paedobaptists often appeal to Romans 4 to argue that circumcision, as a sign and seal of Abraham's faith, is applied to infants as a sign and seal to them as well, which is then carried over in baptism.128 But this is not Paul's point in this text. Instead, Paul is presenting Abraham as the paradigm for all believers, both Jew and Gentile. To Abraham and to him alone, circumcision was a covenantal sign attesting that he had already been justified by faith apart from circumcision.

His teaching as to the absence of any freedom of will or choice in man, and of salvation as being solely by the grace of God, went so far as to lead to the neglect of right conduct as a part of the Gospel. Among the doctrines carried over from the Church of Rome was that of baptismal regeneration, and, with this, the general practice of baptising infants. While reviving the teaching of Scripture as to individual salvation by faith in Christ Jesus and His perfect work, Luther did not go on to accept the New Testament teaching as to the churches, separate from the world, yet maintained in it as witnesses to it of the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ; he adopted the Roman Catholic system of parishes, with their clerical administration of a world considered as Christianized. Having a number of rulers on his side, he maintained the principle of the union of Church and State, and accepted the sword of the State as the proper means of converting or punishing those who dissented from the new ecclesiastical authority. It was at the Diet, or Council, of Speyer (1529) that the Reform party presented the protest to the Roman Catholic representatives, from which the name Protestant came to be applied to the Reformers. The League of Smalcald in 1531, bound together nine Princes and eleven free cities as Protestant Powers.

paedobaptists often appeal to Romans 4 to argue that circumcision, as a sign and seal of Abraham's faith, is applied to infants as a sign and seal to them as well, which is then carried over in baptism.128 But this is not Paul's point in this text. Instead, Paul is presenting Abraham as the paradigm for all believers, both Jew and Gentile. To Abraham and to him alone, circumcision was a covenantal sign attesting that he had already been justified by faith apart from circumcision. The text is not giving a general statement about the nature of circumcision for everyone who receives it.

Now, if children were considered to be capable of admission into the Church by an ordinance in the Old Testament, it is difficult to see why they cannot be admitted in the New. The general tendency of the Gospel is to increase men’s spiritual privileges and not to diminish them. Nothing, I believe, would astonish a Jewish convert so much as to tell him his children could not be baptized! “If they are fit to receive circumcision,” he would reply, “why are they not fit to receive baptism?” And my own firm conviction has long been that no Baptist could give him an answer. In fact I never heard of a converted Jew becoming a Baptist, and I never saw an argument against infant baptism that might not have been equally directed against infant circumcision. No man, I suppose, in his sober senses, would presume to say that infant circumcision was wrong.

William and Dolly had still not come to terms with infant baptism. So baby Ann remained unbaptized. It was clear William was leaning toward the beliefs of the Baptists. And why not? Although the Anglican Scott was a major influence, most of William’s spiritual mentors were Baptists, like Skinner and Hall. And as William’s own reputation as a churchman spread, who most enthusiastically welcomed him? Baptists. The congregation of Baptists at Earls Barton, east of Northampton, even persuaded him to preach there every other week. It was a four-hour round trip on foot, so it was no small commitment for such a busy young married man. One day he told Dolly, “A group of Dissenters has asked me to lead their service once a month. And guess where? At Paulerspury!

In Towcester he listened to Thomas Skinner. Skinner was a Dissenter called a Baptist. One of the ways Baptists differed from other denominations was that they did not believe infants should be baptized. They believed only a person who could make a mature judgment should be baptized. That ordinance about baptism was the source of their name. Thomas Skinner loaned Willy a book by Robert Hall called Help to Zion’s Travellers.

In infant baptism it was confessed that conversion and regeneration differ, and conversion is ordinarily a coming to consciousness of that new life which has long before been planted in the heart.

But, in special, we detest and refuse the usurped authority of that Roman Antichrist upon the Scriptures of God, upon the Kirk, the civil magistrate, and consciences of men; all his tyrannous laws made upon indifferent things against our Christian liberty; his erroneous doctrine against the sufficiency of the written Word, the perfection of the law, the office of Christ, and His blessed evangel; his corrupted doctrine concerning original sin, our natural inability and rebellion to God's law, our justification by faith only, our imperfect sanctification and obedience to the law; the nature, number, and use of the holy sacraments; his five bastard sacraments, with all his rites, ceremonies, and false doctrine, added to the ministration of the true sacraments without the word of God; his cruel judgment against infants departing without the sacrament; his absolute necessity of baptism; his blasphemous opinion of transubstantiation, or real presence of Christ's body in the elements, and receiving of the same by the wicked, or bodies of men; his dispensations with solemn oaths, perjuries, and degrees of marriage forbidden in the Word; his cruelty against the innocent divorced; his devilish mass; his blasphemous priesthood; his profane sacrifice for sins of the dead and the quick; his canonization of men; calling upon angels or saints departed, worshipping of imagery, relics, and crosses; dedicating of kirks, altars, days; vows to creatures; his purgatory, prayers for the dead; praying or speaking in a strange language, with his processions, and blasphemous litany, and multitude of advocates or mediators; his manifold orders, auricular confession; his desperate and uncertain repentance; his general and doubtsome faith; his satisfactions of men for their sins; his justification by works, opus operatum, works of supererogation, merits, pardons, peregrinations, and stations; his holy water, baptizing of bells, conjuring of spirits, crossing, sayning, anointing, conjuring, hallowing of God's good creatures, with the superstitious opinion joined therewith; his worldly monarchy, and wicked hierarchy; his three solemn vows, with all his shavellings of sundry sorts; his erroneous and bloody decrees made at Trent, with all the subscribers or approvers of that cruel and bloody band, conjured against the Kirk of God. And finally, we detest all his vain allegories, rites, signs, and traditions brought in the Kirk, without or against the word of God, and doctrine of this true reformed Kirk; to the which we join ourselves willingly, in doctrine, faith, religion, discipline, and use of the holy sacraments, as lively members of the same in Christ our head: promising and swearing, by the great name of the LORD our GOD, that we shall continue in the obedience of the doctrine and discipline of this Kirk, and shall defend the same, according to our vocation and power, all the days of our lives; under the pains contained in the law, and danger both of body and soul in the day of God's fearful judgment.

One of the problems in the entire debate over baptism has been the natural mistake of deriving the doctrine of the covenant from our doctrine of baptism, instead of beginning with the doctrine of the covenant, and then proceeding to discuss baptism. Many Christians have come to baptistic conclusions because they simply took a Bible and a concordance, and then looked up every incident of baptism in the New Testament. This is objectionable, not because they studied the passages concerned with baptism, but because they did not look up all the passages that addressed parents, children, generations, descendants, promises, covenants, circumcision, Gentiles, Jews, olive trees, and countless other important areas. In other words, the subject is bigger than it looks.

To be explicit, all teaching that grace is somehow imparted to an infant ex opere operato (automatically, by some kind of ecclesiastical magic) is rejected here as sub-Christian (indeed, as will be seen, it is sub-Jewish), and detrimental to a faithful preaching of the gospel. Water baptism does not regenerate, it does not save, and it does not cleanse.

under the Levitical administration the people of God lived in servitude—and it was a yoke that was impossible for them to bear (Acts 15:10). The people of God under the New Covenant are free—they have come into their promised inheritance. Although we have not received it fully (not having seen the redemption of the body), we have received enough of it to be free.

Because one of the most striking features of the New Covenant is the inclusion of Gentiles on a large scale, it is important to note that the promises of God to parents do not change as a result of this new state of affairs. Nor does the fulfillment of God’s covenant promises in Christ alter or change the duties of believing parents with regard to the rearing of their offspring. In short, in all eras, God commands parents to bring children up with Him as their God, and He promises that such a faithful upbringing will not be futile. And Scripture is consistently clear that the duties of godly parenthood are not altered if the parents are Gentile.

But because of the faithfulness of men like Peter and Paul at the Jerusalem council, the Christian church (still overwhelmingly Jewish) began to accept uncircumcised Gentiles into their midst. These Gentiles were accepted into the visible church of the New Israel on the grounds of their baptism—a water baptism which could not be denied them because God had clearly baptized them with the Holy Spirit. Paul insisted on this truth with the Galatians, who were being troubled by some Jews for whom this water baptism was insufficient.

Now the Bible tells us that believing Jews continued to circumcise their sons, while graciously not insisting that the Gentiles start circumcising their sons. The debate in the early church was not whether the Jews should stop circumcising their sons; it was whether the Gentiles had to start. The decision of the Jerusalem council was not that individual Gentiles did not have to be circumcised. If circumcision had been required of them, it would have obligated them to live as Jews under the Mosaic law—which included the circumcision of all subsequent generations. Circumcision was not being waived for individual Gentiles; circumcision was being waived for Gentiles and their seed. So the Christian church did not insist that Gentiles circumcise their infants—not because they were infants, but because they were Gentile infants.

So believing Jews continued to practice circumcision, which placed their sons into membership in a visible assembly of Christian saints—the Christian synagogue. But the Jews were also to be baptized. We know this because the New Israel, Jew and Gentile alike, had one Lord, one faith, one baptism (Eph. 4:5). When Peter preached to the Jews on the day of Pentecost, he told them that they needed to repent and be baptized, because the promise was for them and their children (Acts 2:39). So the believing Gentiles had baptism, while the believing Jews had circumcision and baptism. Circumcision was retained by the Jews, prohibited to the Gentiles as a spiritual requirement, and baptism was commanded of them both. Incidentally, we can see clearly in retrospect that baptism, being required of both Jew and Gentile, was intended by Christ to be the lasting sign of initiation into the church.

This period of time between Pentecost and the destruction of Jerusalem was the time when a great transition from circumcision to baptism was being accomplished. During this period, Gentiles were being included into fellowship with the believing Jews, but Jewish infants were not being excluded. Those outside the Christian church were pagans and false Jews—Jews who apostatized from the covenant by rejecting Christ. We know that within the church were believing Gentiles and believing Jews, as well as the infants of believing Jews. The infants of believing Jews were given the sign of circumcision, which, even though it was an ordinance that was fading away, still had profound spiritual and covenantal significance. This obviously brings us to the interesting and pertinent question of the baptism of Jewish infants. The first thing we must show is that circumcision and baptism have the same theological and doctrinal import.

As Christ teaches us the nature of abiding, we see that He is not contrasting abiding with not abiding. The contrast is rather between abiding temporarily and abiding permanently. In this fallen world, apostasy, church discipline, fruitlessness, rebuke, and scandal are to be expected. The house of Christ still has slaves and sons, and we should not be surprised when the differences between them become manifest.

Paul is arguing that the nature of the tree has not been changed by the transition from the Levitical administration to the New Covenant. The Root is still Christ. The tree is still Israel—not the nation of Israel, but rather the person of Israel, the Lord Jesus. Christ is our Israel, and Christ is our only Israel. If we abide in Him permanently, we will bear fruit that remains. If we do not abide in Him permanently, we will be removed and burned.

We can point with amazement at the covenant people of God at the time of Christ. They murdered their own Messiah. Does this make God’s faithfulness come to nothing? Certainly not. Christendom has more than once been full of baptized infidels. Does this make God a liar? Certainly not. Paul then comes to a remarkable statement. Every last professing believer in the world could be lying, and doing so through the teeth, and God would still be true, the root would still be firm, the tree would still be Christ, and the earth will one day be full of fruit. God’s promise to Abraham was not dependent upon the cooperation of man. And we are not supposed to believe it because we see it; we are to believe it because God says it.

Three important truths emerge from this passage. Uncircumcised believing Abraham is thereby the father of uncircumcised believing Gentiles. Believing Abraham, circumcised after justification, is thereby the father of believing Jews, circumcised before justification. Abraham was circumcised as a sign and seal of the righteousness he had by faith. That righteousness was not his own personal faith, it was Christ. Circumcision was his seal that Christ, his righteousness, would in fact come. So when Abraham took this seal in his body, he was thus marked as the father of all believers in Christ—Jew and Gentile both. This is important to note because Abraham’s circumcision was not his personal testimony of his own personal faith. It was God’s testimony, sealing his righteousness—which must not be identified with his faith.

This covenant with Abraham, confirmed to him in Christ, was a covenant which by its very nature could not be annulled (Gal. 3:17). We can see how God has fulfilled His promise to Abraham; it is by the blood of this everlasting covenant that we as Christians are saved (Heb. 13:20). The covenant made with Abraham is still in force today; this glorious covenant made with Abraham millennia ago is nothing other than the new covenant.

Abraham’s physical descendants were required by this to follow in the footsteps of their covenant father, Abraham. This they did, but in two divergent ways (Rom. 9:6–7, 13). Some of them simply mimicked Abraham’s external actions, showing themselves really to be nothing more than children of the devil (John 8:39, 44). They, boasting in their physical lineage from Abraham alone, gathered themselves into assemblies that were actually synagogues of Satan (Rev. 2:9; John 8:39, 44). But others, children of the promise, imitated Abraham’s faith, showing themselves to be his true and faithful offspring (Rom. 4:12). The Bible teaches that only those Jews who are of faith are true heirs of the gracious promise to Abraham (Gal. 3:7). A true Jew was the man who was circumcised in his heart (Rom. 2:28–29).

Circumcision was the sign of the promise, i.e., it was the sign of the gospel. When the law of Moses came, hundreds of years after Abraham, it came in partial fulfillment of the covenant with Abraham (Exod. 2:24–25). It was a temporary administration of shadows, ceremonies, and types, all designed, when rightly understood, to prepare the way for the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham. Abraham had been shown the blueprints of a great house, and he believed that God would in fact build it (Gal. 3:6, 8).

Gentiles were now being grafted into the covenanted olive tree of Israel (Rom. 11:17). These Gentiles were grafted in alongside believing Jews who had been there, in that same tree, since infancy. While leaving the substance of the covenant itself untouched (we must remember it was an everlasting covenant), our sovereign Lord determined that He would alter the external sign of the Abrahamic covenant. Before, that sign had been circumcision. Christ now declared that the means of sealing the nations promised to Abraham (Rom. 4:13) was to be accomplished through baptism (Matt. 28:19).

We can see throughout the New Testament the controversy caused by the inclusion of believing but uncircumcised Gentiles (Gal. 2:11–12). Where is the controversy caused by the exclusion of the circumcised infants of believing Jews? There is no such controversy. But is it reasonable to suppose that those who so loudly objected to the inclusion of uncircumcised Gentiles would somehow not object at all to the exclusion of their own circumcised children?

Confronted with the gross and unbelieving history of the Jews, the baptist must say the Old Testament record of the disobedience of the Jews does not apply to our situation, and that to compare them is to compare apples and oranges. But this means he must therefore explain why the New Testament draws parallels where the baptist draws contrasts.

Abraham’s righteousness was not his own personal faith; his righteousness was Christ, whom he appropriated by faith. Thus, the seal of circumcision was not a seal given as a personal testimony. The seal was God’s seal of the promised and coming Christ, in whom Abraham believed. The meaning of Abraham’s circumcision was not, “Abraham got saved.” Rather, it was, “Salvation will come to the world!” It is true that Abraham was personally saved, and that he was saved by faith. But he was saved because he believed in the objective promise—that is, in the coming Christ.

But God commanded Abraham to circumcise both Isaac and Ishmael, i.e., to place the same sign and seal on them. What did their circumcision signify? Obviously, the same thing—it was a sign of the covenant between God and Abraham (and Abraham’s seed). Now was it also a seal of their righteousness which they had by faith? Depending upon whether we are considering Isaac or Ishamael, the answer is yes and no. We see the same with Jacob and Esau. It was, on both of them, a seal of the coming Christ, the coming Righteousness. The meaning of the sign and seal remained the same. But Jacob personally came to this righteousness of faith and Esau did not. Thus Esau bore the seal of “the righteousness of another” hypocritically. The Jews who persecuted the Christ were following in Esau’s footsteps. They thought circumcision was a sign and seal of their own righteousness. But it was not—it was a sign of a covenant made with sinners, and a seal of a Righteousness found in Another. The seal of circumcision was a seal of “the Lord our Righteousness.

How then does circumcision relate to baptism? Just as circumcision was a sign and seal of the Christ who was to come, so baptism is a sign and seal of the Christ who came. Circumcision looked forward in history, and Christian baptism looks back in history, but they both testify to the same Christ, the same Lord of the Covenant. Neither circumcision nor baptism primarily testifies concerning the inward state of the individual who bears the sign and seal; they testify of Christ.

The baptistic assumption is that the covenants are unlike in this respect. Some Old Covenant members were regenerate, some were not. All New Covenant members are regenerate. The paedobaptist assumption is that the covenants are alike in this respect. Some Old Covenant members were regenerate, some were not. Some New Covenant members are regenerate, some are not. The paedobaptist holds that the difference between the covenants is that the promises in the New are much better—meaning that the ratio of believer to unbeliever will drastically change.

Second, as the words of Gabriel, Mary, and Zacharias indicate, the covenant promise is always made, as Peter says, "unto you, and to your children." Peter included children in Acts 2:39 on account of the content and structure of God's covenant fellowship with his people ever since the days ofAbraham.

We have to remind ourselves that the multitude who heard Peter's sermon on Pentecost was Jewish. It included Jews from Palestine, proselytes, and dispersed Jews from other parts of the Roman Empire and beyond. The Old Testament was all they had of the Holy Scriptures. As they listened to Peter preaching from those Scriptures (twelve of the twenty-two verses of Peter's sermon in Acts 2 contain quotations from the Old Testament), they could have understood his words in only one way-as a reference to the promise in God's covenant and the fact that that promise extended not only to believers but to their children as well. To interpret Acts 2:39 in light of the New Testament Scriptures, which did not yet exist, as do many Baptists," is to engage in hermeneutical error and can only lead to a serious misrepresentation of the mind of the Spirit. The Jewish multitude had Jewish expectations-not just about the Messiah, but also about the way in which God works with people.

How could a converted Jew regard the new covenant as a better covenant, if now his children were to be excluded from God's dealings with his people, no longer receiving a sign of God's covenant promise? If such were the case, Peter and later Paul would surely have had to face that question repeatedly. And yet it is never debated or even mentioned in the NewTestament. Peter and Paul are never called upon to answer the question: Do we baptize the infants of believing parents? Why not? Because Acts 2:39 and other texts underscore that the. covenant is the polity or constitution of God's kingdom. It's the way he operates his church, in both the Old and New Testament eras.

Because God's covenant, the framework within which he operates, has not been changed. There has been no explicit instruction which says that God has altered his modus operandi, his way of operating, with regard to infants receiving the covenant sign and seal, as John Murray has pointed out.20The promise which says, "I will be your God and you will be my people," given to Abraham to embrace not just him but his family, still stands; and it is still, in the words of Peter, "unto you, and to your children." Children would therefore naturally be regarded as subjects of baptism, just as they were of circumcision in the Old Testament.21

Finally, the forensic context reminds us that God is bound by his covenant both to save those who turn to him in Christ and to punish those who spurn the promise and judge themselves unworthy of everlasting life (Acts 13:46). If covenant children do not respond to God's covenant promises and mercies, the sign of baptism will testify against them on the Day of Judgment. "Unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required" (Luke 12:48). Covenant breakers, who fail to appropriate covenant privileges, will reap God's covenant judgment instead of his covenant blessing.24

When the New Testament tells us that this or that "household" (as many English translations put it) was baptized in connection with Christian faith, what would the first hearers have thought?

Circumcision was God's way of marking his people with a visible pledge to honor his covenant for those who expressed faith in him.

Since the covenant remains, but the sign changes, New Testament believers would naturally expect to apply the new sign of the covenant to themselves and their children as the old sign had been applied. Since the old sign was applied to children prior to their ability to express personal faith, there would be no barrier to applying the new sign prior to a child's personal profession of faith in Christ. Baptism would function both as a sign and a seal of the household's faith in Christ. As a seal, baptism would indicate the visible pledge of God that when the conditions of his covenant were met, the promised blessings would apply.

The frequency of the household baptism accounts demonstrates that it was normal and consistent with the ancient practice of the continuing Abrahamic covenant for heads of households to see that the covenant sign and seal was applied to all in their home. No evidence indicates that children were excluded from these households. Rather, two thousand years of covenant practice, combined with the absence of any command to exclude children, indicate that household baptisms included infants.

The question of the baptism of infants cannot be settled on the basis of exegetical data in Acts but only on theological grounds.20 The promise in Acts 2:39 need not mean that children are to be baptized; the promise may mean no more than that the gospel is a blessing not only for the present generation but to their descendants as well — not only to people in Jerusalem but also to those of distant lands — and is analogous to “your sons and daughters” in 2:17.21 The “children” are limited by the following phrase, “every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.” The references to the baptism of households (11:14; 16:15, 31; 18:8) may refer to the “wife, children, servants and relatives living in the house,”22 but they may equally well designate only those of mature age who confessed their faith in Christ.23 It is not certain that such passages mean that the faith of the head of the household sufficed for his children any more than it did for his relatives and slaves.

When Smith came to the introduction of circumcision as a token of God’s covenant with Abraham in Genesis 17, he added a passage condemning infant baptism. God tells Abraham: “My people have gone astray from my precepts … and taken unto themselves the washing of children, … and have not known wherein [children] are accountable before me … And I will establish a covenant of circumcision with thee … that thou mayest know for ever that children are not accountable before me till eight years old.

If infant baptism is not commanded in Scripture, it is thus a violation of what is called the Regulative Principle of Worship.

that it [that is, Collier’s work] might prevail to exhort and stir you up to a more diligent search an enquiry into the covenants, that you may be able to distinguish between law and gospel. For... without the knowledge of the difference [between the covenants], or at least some clear insight into the gospel covenant [that is, the new covenant], you can never live clearly the life of faith, but at best it will be with you... a mixing of the old and new together. You can never be able ministers of the new covenant unless you are able to distinguish between new and old [covenants] that so you may be ministers of the new... Without this, you will never get completely free of[114] the Babylonian apostasy [that is, infant baptism – ultimately, Romanism]... Come to the clearness of the new covenant... It behoves you to be deeply and diligently enquiring into the knowledge of the new covenant... It concerns every believer to know that there are two... distinct [covenants], and to be enquiring into the new covenant as much as may be... Let men of learning and natural parts[115] take heed how they do endeavour any longer to darken this truth.

Neither Christ, nor his Apostles have left us a single preceptor example of Infant Baptism. This is a conceded fact. The very first Pedobaptists in history Cyprian of Carthage and his clergy, (A. D. 253,) did not plead any law of Christ, or Apostolical tradition, for infant baptism. They put the whole thing upon analogy and inference upon the necessity of infants on the one hand, and the unlimited grace of God on the other. Their own language is an implied and ab solute confession that their “opinion,” as they call it, had no basis in any New Testament law or precedent. It confesses, in a word, that in advocating the baptism of literally new-born babes, they were introducing an innovation into the Church of Christ and they defend it only on the ground of necessity.

As far back as 1656 the magistrates of Connecticut asked those of MASSACHUSETTS some questions concerning infant baptism. June 4th, 1657, a meeting of ministers was held in Boston, who adopted what is known as the Half-way Covenant, which provided 'that all persons of sober life and correct sentiments, without being examined as to a change of heart, might profess religion or become members of the Church, and have their children baptized, though they did not come to the Lord's table.' A synod of all the ministers in Massachusetts ratified this provision in the same year. It will be readily seen that such an unscriptural step opened the doors of the Congregational Churches to an immense influx of unconverted people and to a corresponding worldliness of life. The Baptists were obliged, almost single-handed, to stem this public sentiment, but they bravely stood firm for Gospel principles. The Churches increased in number and influence continually, and in a large measure they counteracted these dangerous influences upon the public mind.

Luther observed that in the Old Testament, God accepted both male and female infants through the covenant of circumcision.28 This is not to say that Luther believed that female infants received circumcision, but rather that circumcision was the sign of the covenant that pointed to the promise of redemption, which was effectual for female as well as male infants. Again, the promise is primary—the promise to which the sign of circumcision was connected.

Protestants have discovered great genius in inventing arguments for the support of infant baptism, and to some Baptists they seem to reason in this manner: It is written, God made a covenant with Abraham and his family: therefore, though it is not written, we ought to believe he makes a covenant with every christian and his family. God settled on Abraham and his family a large landed estate: therefore, he gives every christian and his family the benefits of the christian religion. God commanded Abraham and his family to circumcise their children: therefore, all professors of christianity ought, without a command, not to circumcise but to baptize their children. Jesus said, "suffer little children to come unto me:" therefore, infants who cannot come ought to be carried, not to Jesus, but to a minister, not to be healed, but to be baptized. Paul advised married believers at Corinth not to divorce their unbelieving yoke-fellows, lest they should stain the reputation of their children, with the scandal of illegitimacy: therefore, children, legitimate and illegitimate, ought to be baptized. A man of thirty years of age says he believes the gospel: therefore, his neighbor’s infant of eight days ought to be baptized, as if he believed the gospel. And finally, the scripture does not mention infant baptism; but it is, notwithstanding, full of proof that infants were and ought to be baptized.   Really, the Baptists ought to be forgiven for not having a taste for this kind of logic; yea, they ought to be applauded for preferring argument before sophistry.

with no known protest is a further indication that the acceptability of giving infant children the covenant sign was simply assumed by the early church. It seems that infant baptism was

In the sacrament of Confirmation, the Holy Spirit comes with new strength and power to confirm the baptism often received as an infant. One’s baptism is sealed, and the one confirmed takes his or her place as a witness to the risen Lord in the world. Sometimes this is explained as “becoming an adult Catholic.”Adults, of course, have responsibilities to others; and the confirmed Catholic has a responsibility to worship God in spirit and in truth and to witness to Christ, to evangelize and transform the world.

pleasing to God. Churches that practice infant baptism believe that it is their duty to baptize infants, and in failing to do so they would be derelict in a responsibility. Those that refrain from infant

It is necessary to baptize little children, that the promise of salvation may be applied to them, according to Christ’s command to baptize all nations (Matthew 28:19). Just as in this passage salvation is offered to all, so Baptism is offered to all, to men, women, children, infants. It clearly follows, therefore, that infants are to be baptized, because salvation is offered with Baptism” (Ap IX 52).

By infant baptism a person is committed, while unconscious, to a certain church; he is made a member of that church. Now, unless that church is infallible, it has no right to make a person a member without his consent; for, it may commit him to an alliance with error, and to the defenee of it. But all churches are fallible, they may err; a person who is made a member of such a church in infancy, may discover an error in that church when he arrives at maturity. Without his own consent, he has been committed to that error; he was not left free to choose, where it is evident, from the nature of things, a choice might have been exercised. Pedobaptism is therefore inconsistent with liberty. This will more fully appear from the

Laws requiring a certain frequency of church attendance, the taking of Communion, and baptism of infants soon appeared all across the Lutheran areas of Germany. So did laws excluding all religious nonconformists, especially Jews.

the Council of Florence forbade the postponement of Baptism even for forty or eighty days. Since the Tridentine Council it is a strict ecclesiastical precept that infants must be baptized as soon as possible after birth.

The Second Council of Mileve (416) anath ematized all "who deny that new-born infants should be baptized immediately after birth." n The Tridentine Council declared: "If anyone saith that little children, because they have not actual faith, are not, after having received Bap tism, to be reckoned among the faithful, and that for this cause they are to be rebaptized when they have attained to years of discretion, or that it is better that the Baptism of such be omitted than that, while not believing by their own act, they should be baptized in the faith alone of the Church, let him be anathema.

Baptismal regeneration" and "infant baptism." These two errors have, according to the testimony of well-established history, caused the shedding of more Christian blood, as the centuries have gone by, than all other errors combined, or than possibly have all wars, not connected with persecution, if you will leave out the recent "World War." Over 50,000,000 Christians died martyr deaths, mainly because of their rejection of these two errors during the period of the "dark ages" alone -- about twelve or thirteen centuries.

The Anabaptists’ rejection of infant baptism and their insistence upon adult baptism after an individual profession of faith grew out of a desire to distinguish Christianity from state citizenship, as well as from a fresh interpretation of teaching about baptism in the New Testament.

Lutherans hold that everyone who is truly sorry for their sins and believes that Jesus Christ is their savior is converted. And we do not hold that conversion must necessarily take on a violent form or that the process in every case be a conscious experience. This is why Lutherans practice infant baptism.

Infant baptism is typically resisted by people in North American culture today because they (1) do not understand the continuation of the covenant of faith made with Abraham and its application to all believers today, (2) are not informed of the representative nature of covenant headship, (3) do not understand how a covenant sign is a seal (i.e., that baptism is a visible pledge that covenant promises will apply when the conditions of faith are met, so that the sign does not have to be tied to the moment that one believes in Christ), (4) do not realize that children would have been included as members of households that were baptized, and (5) cannot conceive of "dunking" a baby, if one's only experience with baptism involves immersion.

This question turns on one point. We must decide whether the children of believers are to be treated the same way as they were in the Old Testament. So, we must determine whether the New Testament teaches a change on the status of believers’ children. Is there continuity or discontinuity on the inclusion of believers’ children into the new covenant, and thus new covenant signs and rites?

Biblical signs were given corporately to families in the Old Testament. Has that changed? This is a question of continuity. Baptism is similar to other faith rites in the Old Testament. Rituals which involve a symbolic act, such as baptism, are connected to Biblical covenants. Biblical covenants include signs to visibly represent the realities behind the covenant promises.

Baptism did replace circumcision as a Gentile sign of entrance into the Church, as a matter of fact. Moreover, it is a necessary act for believing Jews in addition to circumcision (Acts 21:21, 1 Cor. 7:18). But, it doesn’t exactly replace circumcision for Jews, especially in that transitional era.

Being fully committed to the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, I believed on biblical grounds that regenerate believers cannot lose their salvation (John 10:27-29; Rom. 8:30). I concluded that unregenerate members of the visible church can be covenant breakers in the new covenant.This meant that there was continuity in the way that membership in the covenant was administered. The signs of the covenant are for members of the visible church. Since this is so, even the youngest members, infants, can be included in the visible church and receive the sign of inclusion. This was the critical theological point for me.

After making the covenant with Abraham to bless him and his descendants by grace through faith, God provided a covenant sign both to mark those who were recipients of his promise and to signify his pledge to provide for those who had faith in him. It is important to remember that the sign was given after the covenant was made; it was neither a precondition of the covenant nor a means of conferring it. Faith was and is the sole condition of knowing the blessings of God's covenant.

Because God's promises extended to Abraham's house, he was to devote all that he had to the Lord by use of the covenant sign. This meant that all who were part of Abraham's household in that ancient society were to be devoted to God by circumcision-sons, dependent relatives, and servants (Gen. 17:23; cf. Ex. 12:43-48).

circumcision was God's pledge to provide all the blessings of his covenant when the condition of faith was met in his people. Our faith does not actuate God's covenant or cause it to be extended to us-he chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4)-but our faith does claim (and live out) the covenant blessings that God provides by his grace and pledges with his seal.