Introductory editorial
In his treatise, Of Baptism, Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531) recounted a moment in his theological journey in which he considered rejecting infant baptism. “For some time, I myself was deceived by the error [of rejecting the sign in the absence of faith] and I thought it better not to baptize children until they came to years of discretion.” (LCC: 24, 139). He also conceded that baptism implies some kind of intention of purposeful dedication to Christ: “The man who does that undertakes to live a new life, and it is the whole nature and character of baptism that in it we dedicate ourselves to God, and indeed pledge ourselves to a new life” (LCC: 24, 169). Zwingli recounts his detailed engagement with the Anabaptists over many exegetical issues, all of it instructive concerning biblical interpretation, but finally rejects their arguments for baptizing only of those who demonstrate faith.
Geoffrey Bromiley admitted that Zwingli’s arguments “failed to work out any fully developed or coherent theology of baptism.” (LCC: 24, 127). He did not develop a clear connection between circumcision of infants as analogous to baptism of infants in perpetuity of covenant relations. He did, however, suggest this as a fertile area for theological development for subsequent Reformed paedobaptists. He wrote of a “sacrament” as a “covenant sign or pledge” and went on to assert that “Baptism is a sign which pledges us to the Lord Jesus” and continued, “You will find ample proof of this if you consider the pledge of circumcision.” (LCC: 24, 131) He illustrated that Christ’s blood-shedding rendered the lamb’s sacrifice and the rite of circumcision as unnecessary since “the blood of circumcision … he has now changed to water.” (LCC:24, 132)
Zwingli, discussing Abraham’s circumcision, proposed that it “did not confirm the faith of Abraham” but was a “covenant sign between God and the seed of Abraham.” Given his assertion that “baptism in the New Testament is a covenant sign,” not a confirmation of faith, he used infant baptism to prove this. “Against those who unthinkingly accept the idea that signs confirm faith, we may oppose the fact of infant baptism, for baptism cannot confirm faith in infants for infants are not able to believe” (LCC: 24, 139). If infants are unable to believe, this would seem an obvious contradiction to A. A. Hodge’s statement of the relation of faith to baptism as recorded below.
One of Zwingli’s main arguments is that there is only one baptism. The baptism of John and of Jesus were the same and thus we should not take actions that create a fissure in the history of Christian baptism.
Now it is quite certain that Christ was baptized as an example to us. And if there are any who say: Leave off baptizing infants, for they belong to God in any case, let them note in passing that Christ, the very Son of God, took to himself baptism in order that he might give us an example of unity, that we may all enter under the one sign. (LCC: 24, 167).
It seems that he argued at this point, since we have infant baptism, we must not challenge its validity since baptism in one (Ephesians 4:5). The baptism of John and the baptism of Jesus are the same (167); believers’ baptism, therefore, is the same as infant baptism. If Scripture records no example of the apostles baptizing infants, one cannot be justified in concluding that the apostles, therefore, did not baptize infants. Because of the apostles’ assumption that the covenant sign of circumcision belonged to infants, we conclude, that no none are recorded except under the nebulous report of “household,” so he argued, we must conclude that they regularly baptized infants. That is a strange argument indeed, for one who sought to give loyalty to the regulative principle.
Zwingli explained to Francis, king of France, “In baptism sight and hearing and touch are all claimed for the work of faith. For whether the faith be that of the Church or of the person baptized, it perceives what Christ endured for the sake of his Church and that he rose again victorious.” Baptism, therefore, does not point to the faith of the one baptized, but to the faith of the church. It does not confirm the credibility of the faith of the one baptized but is a covenant sign available to infants of covenant people like the infant males of Abraham and his descendants.
John Calvin (1506-1564) intensified and systematized the argument for infant baptism based on the covenantal status of circumcision. “We have, therefore, a spiritual promise given to the patriarchs in circumcision,” Calvin reasoned, “such as is given to us in baptism since it represented for them forgiveness of sin and mortification of flesh.” Christ is the “foundation of baptism” just as He is “the foundation of circumcision.” (Inst. IV. xvi. 3). Whatever belongs to circumcision also belongs to baptism.
For the Jews, circumcision was “their first entry into the church,” an important assertion and use of vocabulary built on the assumption that the nation of the Israelites constituted the church as Jesus described it in Matthew 16:18—“I will build my church.” Calvin continued, “it [circumcision] was a token to them by which they were assured of adoption as the people and household of God, and they in turn professed to enlist in God’s service. In like manner,” Calvin continued his comparison, “we also are consecrated to God through baptism, to be reckoned as his people, and in turn we swear fealty to him. By this it appears incontrovertible that baptism has taken the place of circumcision to fulfill the same office among us.” (Inst IV. xvi. 4). Calvin asserted that “it is evident that baptism is properly administered to infants as something owed to them.” God did not require circumcision “without making them participants in all those things which were then signified by circumcision.” It was entirely fitting, therefore, that the “circumcision of a tiny infant will be in lieu of a seal to certify the promise of the covenant. … It applies no less today to the children of Christians than under that Old Testament.”
In this context, Calvin queries that since the covenant with Abraham was sealed also in children by circumcision, “what excuse will Christians give for not testifying and sealing it in their children today?” [Inst. IV. xvi. 6]. Calvin’s fervency on infant baptism leads him to see satanic instigation in the attempts to argue against it—“It behooves us to note what Satan is attempting with this great subtlety of his.” Nothing, therefore, should dissuade Christians from bringing their infants to the baptismal font “unless we wish spitefully to obscure God’s goodness.” Christians “offer our infants to him, for he gives them a place among those of his family and household, that is, the members of the church.” [Inst. IV. xvi. 32]. All that is requisite for church membership either is bestowed or promised in infant baptism, or perhaps a combination of bestowment an promise.
This theology under the influence of Calvin and the Puritans who exiled in Geneva during the reign of Bloody Mary (1553-1558) was embedded within the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 28. The connections between covenant, circumcision, and the faith of the church were made more explicit and given a central place in the theology of infant baptism. The Westminster Confession asserts briefly, “Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized” The Scripture proofs include Genesis 17: 7, 9 compared with Galatians 3:9, 14 and Colossians 2:11, 12, Acts 2:38, 39, Romans 4:11 12, 1 Corinthians 7:14 and others.
The Westminster Larger Catechism in question 166 asserts, “Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him, but infants descending from parents, either both, or but one of them, professing faith in Christ, and obedience to him, are in that respect within the covenant, and to be baptized.” Proof texts for infant baptism focus on the covenant with Abraham, physical continuity (“thy seed”), circumcision mentioned in Colossian 2 and Romans 4:11, 12, Acts 2:39 (“your children”), 1 Corinthians 7:14 (“unbelieving husband is sanctified, … your children are holy.”), Romans 11:16 (“the lump is also holy”).
In his commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith, A. A. Hodge (1869) argued that sprinkling, or washing, or purification adequately expressed the concept of baptism—no necessity to take seriously the meaning of “immerse” (Hodge, The Confession of Faith, 340-342). He then described what was necessary knowledge of the gospel and expression of faith and repentance in one received into the church from the world by baptism: competent knowledge, personal experimental faith, and a lifestyle supportive of such profession. Earlier (332) Hodge, in remonstrating against Catholic views said that the efficacy of the Lord’s Supper and baptism depended on two things: “The sovereign will and power of the Holy Spirit” and second, ”the lively faith of the recipient.” This at least would seem to introduce the idea of two different types of baptism. One requires conscious knowledge, belief, and piety, that is a “lively faith;” the other requires none of that from the person baptized but is assumed as promised through the faith of the parent(s).
When he turns to justification of infant baptism, the covenant sign of circumcision plays an important role in showing the “abundant scriptural evidence” for Christian baptism of infants (345). Hodge prefaced his argument with the claim that “God has in all respects made the standing of the child while an infant to depend upon that of the parent” (Confession, 346). He then gives argument for the spiritual application of circumcision as “circumcision of the heart” similarly to what is argued in this Journal. He stated, “Circumcision, precisely in the same sense and to the same extent as Baptism, represented a spiritual grace and bound to a spiritual profession. … It was the seal of the righteousness of faith.” Again, showing the assumption of saving faith connected with both circumcision and baptism, Hodge noted, “True circumcision unites to Christ and secures all the benefits of his redemption” but then makes an application involving a subtle non-sequitur, “and Baptism has now taken the precise place of Circumcision” (346f, Confession). Though connected with the symbol of circumcision, this Journal argues that baptism, rather than forecasting covenant inclusion, assumes that the typological meaning of circumcision (circumcision of the heart) already is present in the person who receives baptism. Later, as he did earlier in a preliminary section, in arguing against the ex opere operato sacramentalism of Roman Catholicism, Hodge makes a very Baptist statement consistent with the content of the arguments made by the authors of this Journal, “Baptism cannot be the only or ordinary means of regeneration, because faith and repentance are the fruits of regeneration, but the pre-requisites of Baptism” (350, Confession). It seems that according to the theological synthesis of the New Testament on baptism, considering faith and repentance as pre-requisites, does not apply to certain members of the human race who are “children of wrath, like the rest of mankind” (Ephesians 2:3).
In his clearest passage concerning the perfect identity between circumcision and baptism, Hodge sets forth the very thesis with which our contributors interact.
Infants were members of the Church under the Old Testament from the beginning, being circumcised upon the faith of their parents. Now, as the Church is the same Church; as the conditions of membership were the same then as now; as Circumcision signified and bound to precisely what Baptism does; and since Baptism has taken precisely the place of Circumcision—it follows that the church membership of the children of professors should be recognized now as it was then, and that they should be baptized. (347, Confession).
To add one more “precisely,” it is precisely that assumption of absolute continuity between circumcision and baptism that our authors seek to challenge. Each is given a passage, sometimes more than one, that is relevant to this typological/theological question. We believe that the canonical and exegetical arguments provided will provided a scripturally defensible position for Baptist ecclesiology. We also ask sincerely, “Are You Circumcised?”
