NEGenWeb Project
Resource Center
Church

     WITH the establishment of God's covenant with Abraham came an established relation not alone between God and his adult people, but with the children as well. "For the promise is unto you and to your children, and to all that are afar off." Acts ii. 39. "Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." Acts iii. 25. It was of the children our Lord said (Mark x. 13): "Of such is the kingdom of heaven." Yes, the kingdom of heaven is composed of the children of the covenant, and of all such as become like unto them. And yet it is a lamentable fact that the subject of infant membership in the kingdom of grace--their relation to the covenant --is very imperfectly comprehended by the popular Christian mind; and the importance of the
     5

subject is still less keenly realized by the majority of Christian parents.

     There is nothing in the home which can take the place of the little child. It commands the attention and affection of all in the family circle. This fact is indicative of its importance there. Nay more, this very fact is but the external manifestation of the principle enunciated in the words of Christ, "Of such is the kingdom of heaven." Therefore also has the Apostle declared them to be "the children of the covenant." (Acts iii. 25.)

     The great body of the Christian Church believes and teaches that children, one or both of whose parents, or guardians, or sponsors, are believers it Christ, are proper subjects of baptism, and are the children of the covenant. And in taking this position they are not moved by the respect and the affection which their children command, but by the teachings and precepts of God's word am kingdom. Their convictions are based upon am their position is taken:

     I. From the Nature of the Church, and of God's Covenant with the Church.

     That there is such a thing as a kingdom of grace all Christian believers admit. It is a plan or economy of divine operations by which God

has been operating ever since the foundation of the world, with the evident purpose of redeeming poor fallen humanity. This kingdom is the center and fundamental principle of all Providence, of all history, and of all Scripture. It began with the gracious purposes and promises of God. It will reach its consummation in the ultimate completion, glory, and rest of the saints in their heavenly state. It is a grand and wonderful administration, which enters in and goes out from Christ in his character of Mediator between God and the apostate world. It also comprehends all of the human race, of every age, and of every class, who are recovered from the fall, and saved from the ruins of sin to the joys and honors of ultimate salvation.

     Again: It is also admitted that this divine plan has a visible, tangible, and outward existence in the world. This, with its signs, agencies, and administrations, we are pleased to call "The Christian Church."

     The Christian Church, strictly speaking, comprehends and includes all such persons who have been properly inducted into the same by God's initiatory rite, and are savingly united with Christ. Hence if God has such a kingdom, and has con-

nected it with certain outward ritual signs, all who are savingly reached by it, or are members of it, unless excluded by specific law, must be equally entitled to those ritual signs, and no man has any right to withhold, them. With these premises we proceed. Let it be observed then:

     i. That God, in his covenant with the Church, has expressly included children.

     This proposition is generally admitted by all Bible students. For in Genesis xvii. 9-14, we have this record: "And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou and thy seed after thee in their generations. This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee: Every man-child among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, and every man-child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money from any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised. And my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And the uncircum-

cised man--child, whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant."

     In this passage we have distinctly stated three things: i. That every male child should be circumcised, whether their own children or those of' strangers--all children under their control must be circumcised. 2. That circumcision should be a token of the covenant between God and the Church. For the positive declaration is: "It shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you"-- not your children only, but "you," including old and young--the Church. Hence the reader will observe that this is the only initiatory or inductive rite into the Church recognized between God and Abraham for either or both old and young. 3. It is stated that all who were not thus inducted by circumcision were denied recognition among God's people, or membership in his Church. Let us note particularly God's own declaration: "And the uncircumcised man--child, whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut of from his people." That soul is not included in God's covenant, and therefore cannot be recognized in his Church. Hence, our proposition, that God, in his covenant with the Church, has expressly in-

cluded children, is so clearly set forth in his word that every candid reader is compelled to admit it.

     But methinks I hear some one saying that this was only an old-dispensation Church, and that, living under the new or Christian dispensation, we are no longer under the conditions of the Abrahamic covenant. Hence, we advance from our former proposition and offer another:

     2. That the Church is one, and God's covenant with the Church is one, under the different dispensations from Abraham to the end of the world.

     In Genesis xvii. 7, we have God's promise to Abraham stated thus: "And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee." Now, let us read and compare with this passage Galatians iii. 15-18, 29: "Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth or addeth thereto. Now, to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, and to seeds, as of many, but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it

should make the promise of none effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise. And if ye be of Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."

     These passages are so clear that we need scarcely call the reader's attention to the salient points in them. But he will, at first reading, see that in Genesis God promised Abraham that this covenant should be valid "for his seed in their generations" --not one generation, but "their generations"--and then adds, "it shall be an everlasting covenant." And then, that Paul, in Galatians, referring to the same promise, says, "Not to seeds as of many, but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ." And in order to remove all doubt as to who are meant by "Abraham's seed," closes the discussion by asserting, "And if ye"--Christian believers--"be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to promise." Hence, as we have records of but two dispensations, and as the same covenant is asserted in God's word (as above) to include both these in the promise, we feel that we can safely leave the matter with our readers without further treatment of it and proceed to another thought:

     3. That if children were once included by the covenant in the Church by express divine command, they cannot now be excluded without a similar divine command.

     We have seen that the law of God, by the rite of circumcision, embraced children, and made them members of his kingdom as it then existed. This same law has continued on down through the Mosaic economy to the time of Christ and his Apostles, and was recognized-- as such by them. From the beginning, therefore, God has admitted has admitted children to his visible kingdom, and commanded them to receive the token or seal of their membership. Now, if some one will please show us when and where this law regulating the right of children to membership in God's kingdom has ever been revoked, we will surrender our claim without a word. Let any one who knows or has ever heard of such a revocation in God's word produce it if they can. If it has been revoked the record can be found and produced. But, strange to say, no one has ever pretended to know of any such revocation. If then God's law respecting infant membership in his kingdom, and the rite or seal of the same, has not been revoked, they now sustain the same relation to God--are under the same

divine command--as when the covenant was made, and are entitled to the same rite or token of their membership. If divine authority does not exclude them, then why should we? From the nature, therefore, of the Church, and of God's covenant with the Church, children, one or both of whose parents are in covenant relation with the Church, are the children of the covenant, and hence proper subjects of baptism. But we observe:

     II. That the teachings and actions of Christ indicate that he regarded the little ones as the children of the covenant.

     We do not pretend to say that Christ baptized any children--he baptized no one. But we do pretend to say that he treated them as children of the household of faith--as children of the covenant--and therefore as proper subjects of baptism. We read in Mark x. 13-16, "And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them; and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. But when Jesus saw it he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. And he took

them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them."

     By "the kingdom of God" we are to understand God's kingdom of grace; it may be either the Church on earth or the Church in heaven. If it be the Church on earth, then the case is settled. For, as God gave them a token of their membership, and has never revoked it, they are children of the covenant; and if this be true--if members of God's kingdom at all--then they have the same right to the seal of that membership now as when it was first given. But if the Church in heaven be meant, then the case is equally clear: For, if children are worthy of membership in the Church triumphant, they most certainly are worthy of membership in the Church militant, also. And if children of the covenant at all--if fit subjects for membership in either--they are also fit subjects for the seal or rite of membership, viz., baptism. Moreover, our readers will observe that in this passage three things are asserted

     i. That children are receivers of God's kingdom. "Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God."

     2. That they so completely receive the kingdom of God as to become models for all receivers of it.

 "Whoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein."

     That adults must receive the kingdom of God just as little children do, or they can not enter into it at all. "Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, shall not enter therein." "Except ye become converted, and become as little children, ye can not enter the kingdom of God." But how do adults become such? "Believe and be baptized and thou shalt be saved," is the condition. But in astonishment some will ask, "Can the little children believe?" For an answer let us read Matt. xviii. 6: "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." Here our Lord says they believe. That settles it. Baptize them, and you have a full compliance with the injunction, "believe and be baptized," and have a right to the promise, "thou shalt be saved."

     But let us follow this thought still a little farther and inquire, how do children receive the kingdom of God? How did they become the children of the covenant? Can any one indeed be said to receive the kingdom of God under the Gospel

without at the same time being a proper subject of baptism? Nay, further, Can any one receive the kingdom of God at all, in any visible or tangible way, without being baptized? Such a thing would be grossly inconsistent with the entire history of God's dealings with his children. As the Church was constituted, under the old dispensation, the reception of the kingdom of God with all its promises was invariably linked with the rite of circumcision. And no male infant could be said to receive the kingdom of God until circumcised. And the reception of the kingdom of God now is just as intimately linked with baptism as it was then with circumcision. "Except a man be born of water and the Spirit he can not enter into the kingdom of God." If children of the covenant at all, therefore, they must become such by baptism, as that is the only initiatory rite. Infant baptism is, therefore, most clearly taught by our Lord. Who then will gainsay infant baptism? Who will presume to deny the rite or seal to the lambs of his flock--the models of God's kingdom--those whom Jesus himself took up in his arms and blessed?

     But again Our Lord's command to his disciples was, "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of

the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." We are here taught whom we are to baptize--"all nations."  But who are comprehended in "all nations?" Certainly all who are enumerated as belonging and composing the nations. Let us refer to a familiar illustration In 1890 the last census of our country was taken. Those who took the census passed through every district, visited every family, and took down and counted the name of every man, woman and child that was born on or before, and living at twelve o'clock on the first day of June, '890. It mattered not if a child was but one hour, or less, old, if then living, it was counted as a part of our nation, as well as the man of three score years and ten. When we are asked, "Who compose our nation?", we can but answer, therefore, "All now living within the limits of our nation, from the oldest hoary-headed father or mother to the youngest babe." Hence, the command, "make disciples" of all these "and baptize them."

     Moreover, the original word (µaØnrevoare)-- matheteusate--means more than simply instruction it means all that it takes to make a Christian. (See Matt. xiii. 52.) How are they to be made disciples? Our Lord says, by "baptizing them."

The children are members of God's kingdom. They are disciples. Our Baptist friends admit this. If they are disciples then comes the command, "baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

     III. Baptism is the outward sign or token of our internal relation with God.

     That baptism is the only initiatory rite into the Christian Church is admitted by all evangelical Christians. It is the only sign or badge of membership in the Church militant. We have heard our Lord's own declaration in regard to the children--" Of such is the kingdom of God." Jesus therefore owns children as a part of his kingdom. Their internal relation with God is therefore settled. They are his. They are the "lambs" of his "flock." Now, if this is their internal or spiritual relation with God, will any one presume to deny them the seal or badge of that relation? In the language of the venerable Dr. Seiss, "Infants are a part of Christ's mystical body. They are an integral portion of that humanity for which his mediation avails. They are redeemed by his blood. They are among the purchase of his death. Until by unbelief and disobedience they reject him, they are his. Redemption is officiating for them. The

kingdom of God is of them, and others like them. If this be not true, there is no hope for them. Just as surely, then, as God has linked baptism to the effectual application of saving grace, to signify and seal it; and just as certainly as it is Christ's appointed badge for those who are partakers of his healing and saving power, it is to be administered to infants; and the deepest and most vital constitution of Christianity is touched and violated by excluding them from it. Indeed, to us there seems to be but this one alternative--that infants are entitled to baptism, or else they must perish--not that baptism alone can save them, but for the reason that anything which incapacitates them for baptism must also incapacitate them for salvation." That is to say, that if infants are not fit subjects for baptism, they certainly cannot be for salvation. But God positively declares them members of his kingdom. Then if thus related to God--if children of his covenant--why deny them the rite or seal of that relation?

     With this view of our Lord's treatment of the children of the covenant, let us proceed to notice:

     IV. That his apostles also treated them as children of the covenant in the household baptisms recorded in the New Testament.

     We have the record of at least five household baptisms in the New Testament. We have the record of the jailer of Philippi and his house, in Acts xvi. 29-34, as follows: "Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling and fell down before Paul and Silas, and brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in the house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes, and was baptized, he and all his straightway. And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house."

     In verse 31 the jailer was told, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, and all thy house," and, in verse 33, we read, "he was baptized, he and all his straightway." Now what was "all his house" that was baptized? Certainly every intelligent reader of Scripture will at once understand this expression to mean his family, including servants and children. But, as Scripture is its own best interpreter, we will refer to Paul's first letter to Timothy (iii. 4) where we

read: "A bishop must be blameless,  *  *  *  *  one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity." Here we have a simple and clear explanation of what is meant by "he and all his house." The conclusion is inevitable--children were included, if there were any in the family. Besides this we have the records of the baptism of "Lydia and her house" (Acts xvi. 14, 15); of "Cornelius and his house" (Acts x. 48); and that of "Crispus with all his house and many Corinthians" (Acts xviii. 8); and "the household of Stephanus" (1 Cor. i. 16). Now in all these cases of household baptism, certainly no reasonable person will question the presence and baptism of at least some children. And if our Lord's inspired apostles treated infants as children of the covenant, and baptized them, why should not we do likewise?

     But we turn now from the testimony of God's Word to the testimony of history, and observe:

     V. Thai infant baptism has been the uniform practice of the Christian Church from the time of Christ and his apostles to the present time.

     Infant baptism is not one of the modern innovavations (sic). It can be traced back, as a general practice in the Church, through every period of history
          6

from the present to the time of Christ and his apostles. But, inasmuch as the practice of infant baptism is not questioned from the fourth century on, we will commence there and trace it back. We will commence with the testimony of Pelagius. He was born about the middle of the fourth century. He says: "I have never heard of even any impious heretics who assert that infants ought not to be baptized." Pelagius was a man of recognized scholarship and learning, and would not only have known the facts in the case, but as a Christian man could be relied on for the truth.

     We next give the testimony of St. Augustine, born A. D. 354. He says: "The whole Church practices infant baptism. It was not instituted by Councils, but was always in use. This the Church has always maintained."

     Origen was born A. D. 184, or about eighty-four years after the death of St. John. In his "Homily" on the fourth chapter of St. Luke, he says: "Infants are baptized for the remission of sins." In his commentary on Romans, he says: "For this cause it was that the Church received an order from the Apostles to give baptism to infants." This, also, is very positive testimony from a Christian scholar. He is not only a witness to the cur-

rent practice of infant baptism at that time, but asserts that it was "so ordered by the apostles." I therefore, the witness of these men is worth anything, it proves that infant baptism, as a practice, had its origin in apostolic times, and must, therefore, have been taught and practiced by them. From the fourth to the eleventh century it is generally admitted, even by our Baptist friends, to have been the common practice of the Church. A. D. 1120 a sect rose up against infant baptism, but public sentiment was so strong and general in favor of infant baptism that this sect soon disappeared. Then infant baptism was, without any opposition, the common practice of the Church to 1522, when another sect arose in opposition to it. Yet, notwithstanding the opposition of this sect, the great body of the Christian Church has practiced infant baptism from that time to the present. If, therefore, infant baptism has been the common practice of the Christian Church from the time of the apostles to the present time, one of two things must follow:

     1. It must have been an innovation upon the teachings and actions of the apostles by their immediate associates and successors; or,

     2. It must have come directly from them by

word and practice as a part of the divine commission. For no inferential or optionary custom would have brought it into such general and continued practice against all opposition.

     If the former, (viz., that infant baptism was ever introduced as an innovation upon any former practice,) the record of that innovation cannot now be found anywhere, either in tradition, sacred or profane history. And it would seem passingly strange that such an innovation had ever been made, and its record given to oblivion forever!

     But with these considerations we feel that we can leave the subject with our readers, confidently believing that they will join us in the conviction that God would have us receive and treat our little ones as children of the covenant--to baptize them.

     But we cannot close without presenting to our readers a few thoughts on the benefits of baptism to children:

     1. By baptism, in the place of circumcision, children are brought into covenant favor with God. Circumcision identified the child with the people of God. The uncircumcised child was ordered to be cut off. But by baptism they are brought into covenant favor with God, and hence become heirs of

the promise. For (Acts 38, 39), "the promise is to you and your children."

     2. Baptism is a means of regeneration. Paul in his letter to Titus (iii. 5), calls it "the washing of regeneration." Our Lord said (John iii. 5), "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God." Baptism is not the thing itself, however--"opus operatum" --as taught by some, but it is a means to that end.

     3. Baptism, as the initiatory rite into the Church, becomes a means of grace. You receive baptism not only in compliance to the divine command but also to obtain its blessings for yourselves. But baptism will procure the same blessings for your little ones. The divine injunction is, "bring up the children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." Eph. vi. 4. But how can this be done if you deny them the means of grace? The means of grace are the "nurture" to the child--they are the food for its soul. Here any Christians who withhold baptism from their children involve themselves not alone in a very grave inconsistency, but also in a sheer impossibility. As well expect their children to grow up strong and robust physically, without eating, as to grow up in "the nurture and admonition of the Lord," without the

means of grace. God commanded Israel to thus consecrate their children to the Lord. This command has never been revoked. It is as binding therefore upon you, and you are as responsible for a proper compliance with it, as was Israel of old. Let us not forget our covenant obligations to God and to our children. 0 how we prize our children! They are God's most precious gifts to us. How we labor and toil for their temporal welfare; but shall we withhold from them that which will fit them to become the joy of our hearts later in life?--to become an honor to themselves, to their parents, and above all an everlasting honor to God, who gave them to us? The Lord guide your minds into a proper conception of his word on this subject, and quicken your hearts by his spirit to do his bidding, is the prayer of your humble servant. Amen!

© 2003 for the NEGenWeb Project by Pam Rietsch, Ted & Carole Miller.