INFANT-RHANTISM INSTEAD OF CIRCUMCISION UNTENABLE.

Dear Brother:

            The Paedo-baptists in their controversies with us believe that they have in the substitute relation of Christian baptism to circumcision, a stronghold of defence for the practice of infant sprinkling: deducing from this proposition the conclusion that, as infants were of old the divinely appointed recipients of the primal token of the first ordained “Covenant of Promise,” the new one conveyed in baptism, which has superseded it, may, by a parity of reasoning, be legitimately communicated to them now. Their inference would be plausible, perhaps, if sprinkling were baptism, which it is not; and the immersion of an infant the “one baptism” of the Messiah’s institution, which it is not either. But if the propriety of calling the name of the Lord in immersion of an infant were a correct deduction, it is obvious, that the doing so in sprinkling might not be such at all. To those, however, who view the subject in the light irradiated by the doctrine of Christ, the fallacy of their conclusion in itself, as well as their erroneous application of it, is fully apparent; and their stronghold is seen to be a very insecure entrenchment. Permit me to exhibit this in a few remarks on the Covenant tokens of circumcision, and the name of the Lord.

            As I have intimated I believe their premises to be true and scriptural, and therefore reconcilable and consistent with the scripture truth, that an enlightened, faithful, adult is the only fit recipient of the three-fold name of God.

            Of the import of circumcision there can be no dispute. Concerning it God said to Abraham, “It shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you;” and Paul declares, “Abraham received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of his faith.” It was at once a seal and a token; a seal in submitting to whose impress he received a ratification of the “exceeding great and precious promises,” which God had given to him; and a token, a memorial of them, and witness to him of their certain fulfilment hereafter. To his descendants also in the line of Isaac and Jacob, circumcision was an individual ratification of the covenant made with their federal head; certifying to each of them their joint participation with him, so long as they walked in the footsteps of his faith. And found without it, they had no part with Abraham; for Jehovah had said of the uncircumcised “That soul shall be cut off from his people.” Thus circumcision, as an indispensable seal of conveyance, invested each obedient Israelite with a title to inherit the blessings of the covenant when the time should come for its promises to be present realities; these being an everlasting and coetaneous occupancy with the Christ whom Abraham “saw afar off,” of the land of Canaan; and of the incalculable increase of Israel, with their future dominion over, and ministry of blessing to, the nations. I am aware that it is urged against this view of the significancy of circumcision, that that institution was connected with the law rather than the gospel; in proof of which, Paul declares its recipients under an obligation to keep the law; resulting simply and solely from their being circumcised. It is true that he does this, but circumcision is nevertheless, as to its design, “not of Moses, but of the fathers.” It was instituted antecedently to the law, though it bore afterwards an important relation to it. This arose from its character as a mark distinguishing Israel from the gentile world around. It exhibited their separation from the nations, as a people consecrated to their God and King; to whom beneath Sinai’s mount, they had vowed fealty and subjection. By affixing on each one a badge of his relationship to Abraham and Abraham’s God, is asserted Jehovah’s right to his loyal obedience; showed him a subject of Israel’s Divine Monarch; and therefore “a debtor to do the whole law” promulgated by his sovereign. But this was not the primary import of the “token;” its bearing on the law was accidental and irrespective of its design. We see this illustrated in the fact, that its observance was discontinued, and even in apostolic teaching, prohibited; whilst the disciples remained subject to the Mosaic code in many things. Though they did not look for justification from it, they were nevertheless obedient to its civil requisitions; and did not scruple on some occasions, to conform to its religious ceremonial, as in the case of Paul, who, to convince the Jews that he walked orderly and kept the law, fulfilled with four others the vow of a Nazarite; to complete which, he must offer by the priest two lambs and a ram for a burnt offering, sin offering, and peace offering.

            But to return. This covenant still remains the charter of the rich recompense of our reward. Its seal of circumcision is set aside; it has no longer significancy. But the covenant, being in force, must have, judging by the analogy of the past, now, as formerly, some initiative and memorialising “token.” That the name of Jesus communicated in baptism, the only institution of our Lord’s, except the commemorative supper, is the substitute of circumcision, may fairly be inferred from its supplying its place as an inductive and indispensable ordinance, bringing its subjects into a new position towards God and towards his people, essential to the realisation of covenant blessings in the future. “The uncircumcised shall be cut off from his people;” and the parallel is, “except a man be born of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” “Baptism doth now save us.” Admitting its substitute relation to circumcision, the substitution itself—the change of the ordinance may be accounted for as resulting from events which transpired in relation to the Christ, viz: his manifestation, death, burial, and resurrection; or rather from Jewish incredulity of his Messiah-character of whom they were witnessed. —These facts formed as it were a codicil to Jehovah’s will, bringing in the death of his representative testator, and affirming that Jesus of Nazareth was he. These supplementary articles being of equal force and verity with the testament itself, their rejection necessarily invalidated faith, which had respect only to the covenant as dissevered from them; for it is not a part of the truth, but the whole—the things of the kingdom and the name—which constitutes the one essential faith. Had Israel as a nation received these truths, it does not appear that an alteration of the covenant token would have been requisite; for though it might have been expedient for Gentile introduction into the church, yet we cannot say that these would ever have been “grafted in,” but for Israel’s unbelief. Had they nationally acknowledged Jesus of Nazareth for their king, the new ordinance might have been superfluous. But as they rejected the superadded codicil there was hence a necessity for an institution, in which the minority who received it might express their faith therein; might be identified, and distinguished from the rest. —This was supplied in the command, “Go and teach all nations, baptising them into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” The ambassadors of Israel’s King went forth accordingly; and, as we read, “baptised into the name of the Lord Jesus.” Thenceforth circumcision became a rite of the past, and was put away as a thing effete; for it was a “token” only to those who believed promises, independently of the then present commencement of their fulfilment. To the mark in the flesh was substituted the name of Jesus, called upon the believer in Him in an immersion of divine ordinance. This is christian baptism—a taking of the name of Jesus indicative of a recognition of his Messiah character in the bath of “pure water” of his appointment. In view of this, how significant is this name? How pregnant with meaning our invocation of it! The name—it is for us the badge of saintly citizenship as circumcision was of old; the title to every faithful one who bears it to an everlasting possession of Palestine in resurrection glory. And one reception of it—it is our witness to Jesus that he is very Christ; our testimony before God, and angels and men, that he is Jehovah’s Son, and Israel’s Prophet, Priest and King.

            Now it will be evident that a recognition of the Messiahship of Jesus having become indispensable to participation in “the blessing of Abraham” an individual interest in this could no longer be ratified to an infant of days, because it must of necessity be incapable of acknowledging the Son of Mary. It is therefore that we see the voluntary subjection of an intelligent adult required to the new token instead of the passive reception of infancy. Baptism is predicated on a confession of Jesus as the Christ, and this no babe is capable of; therefore to baptise, to say nothing of to rhantise, an infant, either Jewish or Gentile, is a palpable absurdity.

            But apart from this consideration, the Gentile is ineligible to receive the token of a covenant made with Israel only. Abrahamic sonship is the divinely appointed qualification for admittance to heirship with Abraham. Jehovah said to him “I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed.” Every Israelite being of his seed by natural birth, was, in virtue of this, entitled to receive the token until it, and, by necessary consequence, its subjects were changed.  But the Gentile was excluded by the very terms of the covenant. The Paedo rhantists lose sight of this. Because the infants of Israel were eligible to the primal token they suppose the offspring of Gentiles are so now in relation to its substitute, which is certainly a not very logical deduction. They do not consider that the Gentile is born an alien from Israel’s commonwealth, and consequently cannot enjoy the citizen’s privileges. He can stand naturally in no relation to it save that of a stranger. His name is not found in the provisions of the will, hence to confer on him the token of inheritance is an empty and deluding mockery. It is true that God has provided for this natural disqualification in “the mystery of the gospel,” making the Gentiles conditionally fellow-heirs with his people by adoption. But it is only conditionally; on a principal of faith and obedience that they can be graffed into Israel’s olive. “They which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.” “Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus; for as many of you (who believe) as have been baptised into Christ have put on Christ.” And the principle of his adoption operates towards the Gentile precisely as the substitution of the name for circumcision did in regard to the Jew. It makes him, whilst an infant, ineligible to it; it disqualifies him for partaking of it then. —Faith is essential; but an infant cannot believe; therefore it cannot be constituted a son of Abraham. The sonship of the Jew is natural; that of the Gentile is by adoption, spiritual only, and contingent on character. Since the day of Peter’s vision on the tanner’s roof, God has admitted all who possess a believing apprehension of “the things of the kingdom of God, and of the name of Jesus Christ,” on their baptism to the degree of faithful Israelites; but never in apostolic records do we read of the introduction of a characterless babe into saintly fellowship. To profess to engraft such into Christ’s Body by any immersion, pouring, or sprinkling; by any formula scriptural or unscriptural, accompanied with prayers, is simply to exhibit the wilfulness of the flesh, in an attempted usurpation of the office of him who alone can change the “child of wrath into a child of grace.” This is God’s work. “No man can come unto me except the Father who hath sent me, draw him.” He does this through providential actings suited to individual circumstances, by his Word as the instrument of transformation, producing voluntary obedience as the consummation.   He graciously makes us co-workers with himself, but then it is our part to follow his guiding, not to lead him. To attempt to direct or anticipate the actings of the Lord our God, in his union of members to his Body, is a mere fleshly assumption, and utter presumption. His name may be called on the passive, unconscious being, and it may be said to be “born again,” but it is a birth of the will of the flesh, of the will of man; not of God.

            In conclusion, I would remark that a Gentile, in whom the word of truth has developed the family likeness of the sons and daughters of the Lord Almighty is, prior to taking hold of God’s covenant by the name of Jesus, in the position of the Israelitish babe, before the eighth day. —Baptism into Christ is to him what circumcision was to it—the boundary-line that must be passed, if he would inherit with Abraham the kingdom of God. Let him cross it, and he needs then but to endure faithful to the end, and all is well, eternally well with him, who has come to trust under the sheltering wings of the God of Israel. But we must take his name if we would be one with Jesus our Lord. “I have espoused you as a chaste virgin to Christ,” says Paul. This is the ceremony of the Bride’s espousals; it is the grafting of the branch into the vine; it is the cementing of the stone to the temple whose foundation is Christ Jesus. Of old in God’s “holy and beautiful house” he put his name, and now he records it on every stone of his spiritual temple. Yea, verily, “the name of the Lord is a strong tower; the righteous runneth into it and is safe.”

PRISCILLA DERBE.