Scriptural Baptism

Its Mode and Subjects as Opposed to the Views of the Anabaptists

T. Witherow

• Publisher: Left of Brain Books
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781396317910
• Topic: Teología y religión
• Subtopic: Rituales cristianos y práctica

Shall we obey the command of Christ as He intended or shall we obey the command in a way that pleases us? Thomas Withrow clears all controversy surrounding Baptism, founding his claims solely on Scripture.Baptism changes one's state from an alien to a citizen of God's kingdom, surrenders one's life to faith and obedience, and opens the gates of Heaven. Imagine not doing it as per the instructions Christ gave.Withrow discusses two topics in this small book, the methods of baptism and its subjects. First he elaborates on immersion, pouring, and sprinkling, then he states whether baptism should be performed on infants or adult believers.He's organized in his thoughts, and he lays the facts of both sides of the dispute before he affirms a definitive conclusion, giving the readers space to think and decide for themselves."It shall be our business to set before the reader the essential facts of the case, to bring out clearly the points of agreement and of difference, and to exhibit the evidence so as to enable each man to judge for himself what the Scripture really testifies on the matter."

The Subjects Of Baptism.

We now proceed to a department of the doctrine which all allow is of much more importance than that which has hitherto been under discussion. We mean an inquiry into the Subjects of Baptism. Christians, it is to be lamented, are not entirely at one even on the question, Who should be baptized? Here, too, human infirmity fails, we think, to apprehend the full testimony of God, and Anabaptism commits the error of denying one-half of the truth. It shall be our business to set before the reader the essential facts of the case, to bring out clearly the points of agreement and of difference, and to exhibit the evidence so as to enable each man to judge for himself what the Scripture really testifies on the matter.

I. The Question in Debate.

In all sound reasoning, the first thing is to know accurately the point in debate. In no controversy was it ever more needed than in this. The Anabaptists invariably represent that believer baptism is their doctrine, and that infant baptism is ours. This representation is both unfair and unfounded; but, with them, it is a favourite mode of stating the question, because it enables them to parade a great number of texts to prove that believers were baptized in apostolic times—a fact which, of course, nobody denies—and then to call upon us to produce an equal array in proof that infants were baptized. The design, of course, is to convey to the unsuspecting reader the impression that all the Scripture is on their side, and no Scripture against them. In vain any man attempts to set them right—they seem to have no desire to be set right. The next day they will inform the public that they hold the baptism of believers, and that we hold the baptism of infants. Such a represcutation is a proof of weakness; any cause that is strong and true never wilfully misstates the case.

What is the real state of the matter? Plainly this, that the baptism of believers, in the circumstances described in the Scriptures, is as much the doctrine of any other Protestant Church as it is the doctrine of the Anabaptists, the only difference between them and us, on the subjects of baptism, being simply, whether the ordinance ought to be administered to the infant children of believers.

The baptism of believers is, we repeat, common ground to us and them. Every instance recorded in Scripture of faith being required in order to baptism, is a case where we would require faith in order to baptism. The 3000 at Pentecost (Acts ii. 41), Saul of Tarsus (Acts ix. 18) and the disciples at Ephesus (Acts xix. 5), were, up to that period, Jews, who, on entering into the Christian Church, were baptized, after making a profession of faith, but who would not have received the ordinance from us on any other terms. The same condition, previous to baptism, we would have demanded from the Eunuch (Acts viii. 35), from Cornelius and his friends (Acts x. 47), and from Lydia (Acts xvi. 15)—for they were Jewish proselytes asking admission into the Christian Church. Simon Magus and his fellow-townsmen (Acts viii. 12, 13) believed and were baptized; but these Samaritans—the adherents of a false and corrupt worship—would not by us have been taken into the Church without baptism, nor baptized without faith. The jailer of Philippi (Acts xvi. 33,34), and the Corinthians (Acts xviii. 8, and I Cor. i. 13-17) were previously heathens, who had to believe before being baptized, and on no other terms would such persons be admitted to membership in any Evangelical Church. These are all the cases recorded in the Scriptures where faith preceded baptism; and any one of all is enough to prove that any person, in the same circumstances as they were, must believe in order to be baptized. But mark what these circumstances were:—every one of them, up to the period of his baptism, was either a Jew or a Jewish proselyte, a Samaritan or a heathen; every one of them was an adult, coming into the Christian Church from the world beyond it; every one of them was the case of a person whose parents had not been Christians; and none of them had ever received Christian baptism before. There is no Protestant Church in Christendom that would not require faith from all of them prior to baptism; because, from the day that the Christian Church was founded, they were all, without exception, out of the visible Church, and our doctrine has always been, that “baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible Church, till they profess their faith in Christ and obedience to Him” (Shorter Catechism, Quest. 95). The baptism of believers, in such circumstances as the Scripture prescribes, being the doctrine of our Church, patent on the face of its standards for ages, the Anabaptists have no more right to quote these Scripture examples against us than we have to quote these examples against them; and, however it may prop up a sect, it can never serve the interests of truth to represent, as they invariably do, that the baptism of believers is exclusively their doctrine, and not ours.

Let there be no mistake on this subject with the reader. We maintain that, when any one, born beyond the membership of the Christian Church, whether a Pagan, a Samaritan, or a Jew, would seek admission within its pale, he cannot be baptized till he believes. On this part of the subject both sides are agreed. We only differ from the Anabaptist when he argues that, because an adult needs faith before baptism, therefore an infant needs faith before baptism. His logic does not seem to us convincing, when he maintains, because a profession of faith was needed from Jews, Samaritans, and Pagans on their entrance into the Church, therefore the infants of those in church-membership already need to make a profession of faith, or be excluded from baptism for want of it. If faith before baptism is required from adults in certain circumstances, it seems to us poor reasoning to argue, from that fact, that faith before baptism is required from infants in totally different circumstances. A foreigner, who means to settle in our islands, requires to take out letters of naturalization before he can claim the rights of a British subject; but it does not, therefore follow that one who is British-born requires to do the same. Anabaptists think that the same qualification is required for the child of a church member, previous to its baptism, as is required from an unbaptized adult 0n his admission to the Church, and exclude infants from baptism for want of this qualification. We, on the contrary, think that, to refuse a child baptism, on the ground that it does not possess a qualification which the Scripture does not require from a child, is both unscriptural and unjust.

What, then, is the precise point in dispute? Not the baptism of believers, because the baptism of believers, in all such circumstances as those specified in Scripture, is common ground. The point on which we differ is simply this, What is to be done with the infant children of Church members? We say, “Recognise their Church membership by baptism.” “No,” says the Anabaptist, “leave them unbaptized till they understand the Gospel, and make a profession of faith for themselves.” The difference regards children only; and every argument that does not bear on this particular point is out of place on either side.

II. Anabaptist Objections.

That infant baptism is the practice of all branches of the Christian Church, with one solitary exception, is a well-known fact. That it has been the practice of the Church of God for eighteen centuries is also beyond dispute. When one sect, therefore, ventures to differ in opinion from all other Christian Churches, it should have very strong reasons to support it. Let us consider the objections which they advance against the administration of the ordinance to the children of believers, and then let all men judge whether they are sound and conclusive.

1. The first of these objections is founded on the baptism of Christ—Matt. iii. 13-17. The fact that Christ was not baptized in childhood, but only when he entered on his ministry, some thirty years afterwards, is considered by many of the more ignorant class a strong proof against infant baptism.

My answer to this will be short. At the time of Christ’s birth, the ordinance of baptism did not exist in the Church of God. Circumcision was then the initiatory rite, and Christ was circumcised (Luke ii. 21). Thirty years afterwards, John was sent to baptize, and so soon as the opportunity presented itself, Christ submitted to the rite. But although His own disciples baptized during the Saviour’s lifetime (John iv. 1, 2), yet it was not till the Lord had risen from the dead that Christian baptism was instituted (Matt. xxviii. 19). The mere fact, therefore, that the Lord Jesus did not receive, in infancy, an ordinance that did not exist till after His death and resurrection, is surely no argument against infant baptism. One might as well argue against the circumcision of infants, on the ground that Abraham was not circumcised till he was a hundred years of age.

2. Again, it is said, that an infant cannot understand baptism, and eloquent pictures are sometimes drawn of the wrong inflicted on the poor unconscious babe which receives an ordinance of which it knows nothing, and is made a party to a solemn transaction without any consent of its own.

It is admitted, readily, that a child at baptism does not understand the nature of the ordinance of which it is the subject, but that is no reason why it should not derive benefit thereby. It does not know the texture of the clothes that cover it, and yet these clothes keep it warm. It does not understand the nature of its mother’s milk, and yet that milk sustains its life. The children that were brought to Jesus that He might touch them (Mark x. 13-16), did not understand the ceremony that was gone through on that occasion, and yet we cannot but believe that Christ’s blessing did them good. An Anabaptist might have rebuked those mothers, and said to them, “Take your children home, what is the good of it? What can they know about Christ’s blessing?” But Jesus would have shown him, what he did show the ignorant disciples, that with such conduct He “was much displeased.” A Divine purpose may be served, and good may be done, by the administration of baptism to a child, while, at the same time, the child does not understand the ordinance. If our Anabaptist friends had seen a Jew, with knife in hand, ready to perform on an infant of eight days old the rite of circumcision, they would have attempted to dissuade him from his bloody work in some such way as this—“How can this poor babe know anything of a covenant made so many years ago? Why administer to it an ordinance that it does not understand? Why make it a party to such a solemn transaction without any consent of its own?” The Jew could scarcely hide his contempt for one so ignorant of the Law and the Prophets, as he would reply—“Beautiful reasoning, indeed, thou Gentile unbeliever! but with me it does not weigh one feather against the appointment of God.” Now, we say the same. The baptized infant may be ignorant of the ordinance, but that does not, with us, weigh one feather against the appointment of God. Dr. Carson, an Anabaptist writer, says, “I would baptize Satan himself, without the smallest scruple, had I a Divine warrant.”¹ Possessing, as we do, a Divine warrant for baptizing the children of believers, we hesitate still less to administer the ordinance to an unconscious babe.

3. Again, we are told there is no command or example in the Scriptures for infant baptism.

This would be a fair and honest objection if advanced by persons who themselves renounce every practice that cannot produce from Scripture express example or command. The parties, however, that state this objection, know very well that in the Word of God there is no command or example for Sabbath Schools, or for admitting females to the Lord’s Supper. Both these things, however, are practised by themselves, doubtless for reasons they consider sufficient; and yet they come to ask for our practice a kind of warrant that they are not able to produce for their own. Now, is this fair? Is it reasonable for them to demand for infant baptism evidence of a different kind from that which satisfies them in regard to other practices they acknowledge to be scriptural?

I have often been amused to hear some zealous Anabaptist, breast-high for doing nothing for which express command or example is not forthcoming, undertake to prove one of the practices of his denomination—namely, that females have a right to be admitted to the Lord’s Supper. Command he has none. Example he has none. But instantly he enters on the field of inference in some such way as this: he finds it written that “the disciples came together to break bread,” and because women are disciples as well as men,” he infers their right to the communion from the fact of their discipleship. He discovers that females were in the Corinthian Church, to which Paul delivered the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper, and thus, from the fact of their membership, he infers their right to communion. He ascertains that they came together with the males into one place when the ordinance was about to be observed, and from the fact of their assembling at the same time with the other members, he infers the propriety of admitting them to the table. Or, because “a man” is commanded to examine himself prior to partaking of the feast, he infers that in the term man the female is also included. Thus his argument for female communion is inference throughout; but the moment that he turns to speak of infant baptism, perhaps the very same man will scout inference altogether. Nothing but express precept or example will do now. The very same kind of proof that satisfies him in the one case, will not, in the other, satisfy him at all. Now, let any honest ...