one of the customs held and upheld by pedobaptist churches, which baptists seriously condemn, is infant baptism. it is practiced by both roman catholics and protestants as a religious institution; and though not held as sacredly, or practiced as widely as formerly, it still prevails to a wide extent throughout the christian world. and yet it was not instituted by christ, nor practiced by his apostles, nor known in the primitive churches, and has neither sanction nor recognition in the word of god. it is for this reason that baptists utterly reject and condemn the custom, as not simply useless and without authority, but as a most pernicious and hurtful usage; that it is injurious both to the child that receives it, and to the church which allows it, can be easily shown. baptism before faith, and without a profession it, contradicts and [p. 130] does violence to all new testament teaching.
not of scriptural authority
now, that infant baptism is not of scriptural authority, and was not known in the first christian ages, nearly all its advocates and defenders have with considerable candor admitted. only a few of their historians and scholars can be cited here.
dr. william wall, a learned divine of the english church, who wrote the “history of infant baptism,” a work so able that the clergy in convocation assembled gave him a vote of thanks for his defense of the custom, says: “among all the persons that are recorded as baptized by the apostles, there is no express mention of any infants.” hist. inf. bap., intro., pp. 1, 55.
thomas fuller, the historian, says: “we do freely confess there is neither express precept nor precedent in the new testament for the baptism of infants.” infants’ advoc., pp. 71, 150.
luther says: “it cannot be proved by the sacred scriptures that infant baptism was instituted by christ, or begun by the [p. 131] first christians after the apostles.” vanity of inf. bap., part ii., p. 8.
neander says: “baptism was administered at first only to adults, as men were accustomed to conceive of baptism and faith as strictly connected. we have all reason for not deriving infant baptism from apostolic institution.” ch. hist., vol. i., p. 311; plant. and train., vol. i., p. 222.
professor lange says: “all attempts to make out infant baptism from the new testament fail. it is totally opposed to the spirit of the apostolic age, and to the fundamental principles of the new testament.” inf. baptism, p. 101.
professor jacobi says: “infant baptism was established neither by christ, nor by the apostles.” art. bap., kitto’s cycl. bib. lit.
doctor hanna says: “scripture knows nothing of the baptism of infants.” north brit. review, aug., 1852.
professor hagenbach says: “the passages from scripture cited in favor of infant baptism as a usage of the primitive church are doubtful and prove nothing.” hist. dict., pp. 190, 193.
bishop burnett, baxter, goodwin, [p. 132] limborch, celarius, field, and many others bear similar testimony.
when did it rise?
since the new testament knows nothing of infant baptism, and since it was neither instituted by christ, nor practiced by his apostles, what was its origin, and when did it come into use?
tertullian is the first who mentions the custom, and he opposes it. this was at the close of the second century, or about a. d. 200. his opposition to it proves two things: first, that it was in occasional use, at least. second, that it was of recent origin, since had it been long used some earlier record if it could be found. neander, ch. hist., vol. i., p. 311.
bingham could find no earlier allusion to it than that of tertullian, though he believed it arose earlier. it must, therefore, as is generally agreed, have had its origin about the beginning of the third century.
curcell?us says: “the baptism of infants in the two first centuries after christ was altogether unknown; but in the third and fourth was allowed by some few. in the fifth and following ages it was generally [p. 133] received.” inst. christ. religion, b. i., ch. 12.
salmasius says: “in the first two centuries no one was baptized, except, being instructed in the faith and acquainted with the doctrines of christ, he was able to profess himself a believer.” hist. bapt. suicer. thesaur., vol. ii., p. 1136.
such testimony is conclusive, and quite sufficient, though much more of a similar character might be added.
but observe: that when the baptism of children began, it was not that of unconscious infants at all, as is now practiced, but, as bunsen declares, of “little growing children, from six to ten years old.” and he asserts that tertullian “does not say one word of new-born infants.” cyprian, an african bishop, at the close of the third century, urged the baptism of infants proper, because of the saving efficacy of the ordinance; and he is called the inventor, or father, of infant baptism. bunsen’s hippol. and his age, vol. iii., pp. 192-5.
why did it rise?
there is even less difficulty in tracing the cause than in finding the origin of infant [p. 134] baptism. it originated in a perversion of christian doctrine, and was itself the perversion of a christian ordinance.
all students of ecclesiastical history know that at an early period corruptions perverted christian faith and practice. among these, one of the earliest was that of an undue efficacy attributed to baptism. its sanctity was so exalted that it was believed to have power to wash away sins, and cleanse the soul for heaven. by it the sick were supposed to be prepared for death, and salvation made more certain by its efficacy. anxious parents therefore desired their dying children to be thus prepared—“washed in the laver of regeneration,” as it was termed—that they might be sure of salvation. and here came in that pernicious error of “baptismal regeneration,” which gave rise to infant baptism, and which has through all these ages clung with more or less pertinacity to the clergy and laity of all churches which have practiced it.
salmasius says: “an opinion prevailed that no one could be saved without being baptized; and for that reason the custom arose of baptizing infants.” epist. jus. pac. see booth’s pedo. exam., ch. iii., sec. 3.
[p. 135]venema declares that “the ancients connected a regenerating power with baptism.” he cites justin martyr, iren?us, clemens, tertullian, and cyprian as holding that opinion. eccl. hist., vol. 4, p. 3., secs. 2, 3, 4.
chrysostom, writing about a. d. 398, as cited by suicerus, says, “it is impossible without baptism to obtain the kingdom,” and as cited by wall he says: “if sudden death seize us before we are baptized, though we have a thousand good qualities, there is nothing to be expected but hell.” suicer., thesaur. eccl., vol. i., p. 3.
waddington, in his church history, says, in reference to the third century: “a belief was gaining ground among the converts and was inculcated among the heathen, that the act of baptism gave remission of all sins committed previously.” hist. of church, ch. ii., p. 53.
professor fisher says: “very early baptism was so far identified with regeneration as to be designated by that term. this rite was considered essential to salvation. a virtue was believed to reside in the baptismal water itself.” hist. christ. ch., p. 83.
[p. 136] do its advocates and supporters hold the same view now? do parents and ministers still believe that the baptism of unconscious infants secures, or makes more sure, their salvation? if not, why do they practice it?
professor lange’s words are weighty, and should be carefully pondered by protestant defenders of this papal emanation. he says: “would the protestant church fulfill and attain to its final destiny, the baptism of new-born children must of necessity be abolished. it has sunk down to a mere formality, without any meaning for the child.” history of protestantism, p. 34.
many good people, familiar with infant baptism and surrounded by its influences, have naturally learned to reverence it as of divine appointment, and some of them really believe it is taught or sanctioned by the new testament. but baptists are right in rejecting it as something utterly without foundation in the word of god.
household baptisms
much stress is laid by some of the advocates of infant baptism on that fact that in [p. 137] the acts of the apostles several cases of household baptism are mentioned. and it is asked with an air of assurance: “if entire households were baptized, must there not have been children among them? and were they not baptized also?” to this it is sufficient to reply, that nothing is said of children, and we have no right to put into the scriptures what we do not find in them. all inference that such households contained infants, and that such infants were baptized, is the purest fiction in the world. if christian institutions could be built on so slight a foundation as that, we could bring in all the mummeries of the greek or the roman church, and all the ceremonies of the mosaic ritual.
one thing is certain: if in those households any children were baptized, they were old enough to receive the gospel and to believe on christ, and were thus suitable subjects for the ordinance, and for church fellowship. for it is said, “they believed, and gladly received the word.” there are thousands of baptist churches into whose fellowship whole households have been baptized—parents and children and perhaps others connected with them. but all were old enough to believe and to make profession of [p. 138] their faith. so evidently it was in these households.
the more prominent of these households are that of lydia, mentioned in acts 16; that of the philippian jailer, mentioned also in acts 16; and that of stephanas, mentioned in 1 corinthians 1. now note what a few distinguished pedobaptist scholars say on these cases.
doctor neander says: “we cannot prove that the apostles ordained infant baptism; from those places where the baptism of a whole family is mentioned, we can draw no such conclusion.” planting and training, p. 162, n. y. ed., 1865.
professor jacobi says: “in none of these instances has it been proved that there were little children among them.” kitto’s bib. cyc., art. bap.
doctor meyer says: “that the baptism of children was not in use at that time appears evident from 1 cor. 7:14.” comment. on acts 16:15.
doctor de wette says: “this passage has been adduced in proof of the apostolical authority of infant baptism: but there is no proof here that any except adults were baptized.” com. new test., acts 16:15.
[p. 139]doctor olshausen says: “there is altogether wanting any conclusive proof-text for the baptism of infants in the age of the apostles.” com. on acts 16:15.
bishop bloomfield says of the jailer: “it is taken for granted that his family became christians as well as himself.” com. on acts 16:15.
calvin, doddridge, henry, and other commentators declare that in this case the household all believed, and therefore were baptized and did rejoice. macknight considers the case of the household of stephanas as giving no countenance to the baptism of infants. and with him agree guise, hammond, doddridge, and others.
as to the argument used by some, that baptism came in the place of circumcision, it is too weak and puerile, too far-fetched and destitute of reason, to claim the serious regard of intelligent and candid minds.
