Infant Baptism Impossible.
The nature of baptism renders it impossible for babes to be baptized. The books on theology call baptism a "sacrament." A Pedobaptist author of note says, "The word 'sacrament' is derived from the Latin word sacramentum, which signifies an oath, particularly the oath taken by soldiers to be true to their country and general." This is what the Scriptures represent baptism to be. Believers are commanded to be "baptized into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." We follow nearly all commentators in translating eis, in the Commission, into, rather than in, as in the common version. Every Greek scholar knows that eis, with the accusative, denotes penetration, entrance into. So the candidate is baptized "into the name of the Father," etc. The name of a governor is the same as his authority, his official power. God sets up a kingdom, and claims service, obedience, and loyalty in the gospel. He calls upon all men to become citizens and "soldiers of the cross." Keeping this in mind, we see plainly how it is that we are baptized "into the name of the Father," etc., and why baptism was called a "sacrament" by the early Christians. It is a formal entrance into the service of the King, it is the oath of allegiance, a pledge of loyalty, a vow of fidelity, by which the party binds himself to serve, obey, revere, and honor God, by walking in all the institutions of the gospel blameless. So we read (Rom. 6: 3), "Baptized into Jesus Christ," and (Gal. 3: 27), "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." As the oath of allegiance introduces the alien into the privileges of citizenship, and binds him to loyalty to the government. As the marriage vow introduces the woman into the name, fortune, honors and destiny of the husband, so, by baptism the subject enters formally into the responsibilities of citizens of Christ's kingdom, pledge fidelity to Christ, and devotion to his honor and cause. This is the meaning, the object, and design of Christian baptism. If the party is not baptized "into Christ," he has not observed Christian baptism. But an unconscious babe cannot be baptized "into Christ," because he cannot vow fidelity, cannot pledge loyalty. In order to do this there must be intelligence and faith. No person can come formally into the name of God, if he does not know him and believe on him. The Holy Spirit says (Heb. 11: 6), "He that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is the rewarder of them who diligently seek him." An unconscious babe cannot believe, and, hence, cannot come to God, cannot enter formally into his name,363cannot be baptized into his name, can know nothing about God, and can enter into no covenant with him, nor make any vows to him. Baptism is not, like circumcision, a mark of pedigree, a seal of national descent, a mere physical affair, but it is the act of the candidate as well as the administrator; a covenant in which the subject must be intelligent and active. We have a divinely authorized definition of baptism, which settles this question beyond dispute: "Baptism is not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God." (Peter 3: 21). This is what God says baptism is. This definition is plain, concise, complete, and agrees with the doctrine of the Commission, and all other scriptural allusions to the meaning of the rite. Let us consider this inspired definition. It does not assert that baptism is designed to satisfy our conscience, fancy, prejudice, education, or superstition. Those who thus interpret it are very inattentive to the sense of words. "Answer" is seldom used in the sense of satisfy, and certainly is not so used here. An answer is a response to a question or proposition, a reply back to one who addresses us. "The answer of a good conscience" is the response or reply of a man who has such a conscience, to the Lord, who submits a proposition, and makes a demand that he should serve and obey him. The word translated answer also has the sense of petition, request. Whether the Lord intended to define baptism to be an answer, or a petition of a good conscience, or both, intelligence, repentance, and faith, are indispensable to the act. The Spirit cuts off all chance for mistake here for he says that "it is the answer of a good conscience towards God," a reply, response, or petition to God, not to ourselves, not to man, not to the church, not to custom, feelings, traditions, but to God, and to him alone, and by the baptized alone, for himself, by his own act, and not by the act of another. According to God's definition, then, baptism is not something done to a passive, unconscious subject. The candidate is necessarily active in it. It is his answer to God, his own vow, his own response of loyalty. It cannot be the response of any other than an active, intelligent agent. It is preposterous that any other character can make this response. An unconscious babe cannot respond to God, cannot know God, cannot accept of God's service. Therefore its baptism is impossible. Moreover, baptism is the response of a good conscience. But a good conscience is an active one, and an honest and approving one. This is essential to the act. Where there is no conscience, or where there is a wicked or guilty one, there can be no Christian baptism. There may be immersion, or sprinkling, or pouring, but no Christian baptism without a conscience and a good conscience. Now a little babe has no conscience. He cannot have one until he has intelligence. Without this, there can be no conscience of duty, obligation, sin, or repentance. Therefore, Christian baptism is impossible to a babe. The "good conscience" cannot respond to God until it exists; it cannot exist without intelligence, and as the babe has no intelligence, he cannot render the response. No more is Christian baptism possible to a sinner. He may be immersed a score of times; the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit may be called over him by a minister of Christ, but his immersion is not, therefore, Christian baptism. How can he render the response of a "good conscience," when he has a guilty one? He may observe the form, but that is not baptism. Is the form of prayer real, Christian prayer? Are words on the lips of him whose heart is far from God, Christian prayer? Must there not be devotion of heart, the answer of the soul, as well as words, to constitute prayer? So the form of baptism is not baptism. There must be the response of a consecrated heart, as well as the form of the act. Hence, there can be no baptism where there is not first a good "conscience." According to God's word, the following. elements are absolutely essential to Christian baptism:— 1. The party must do the act which the law specifies. 2. He must have a conscience of right and wrong. 3. His conscience must be good, i. e., not guilty, not rebellious, not in bondage to sin. 4. With such a "good conscience" he must respond in the required act to God, must use this form as the medium for his answer to God's claims upon him. Now, it is utterly impossible for an unconscious babe to comply with any one of these essential conditions of Christian baptism. He is as incapable of the formal act as he is of the form of prayer; he has no conscience of right and wrong; he can have no good conscience; he cannot know God, consider a proposition from him, nor respond to his claims. He cannot be baptized any more than he can pray. It is just as rational, scriptural, and truthful for the parents of a babe to pray, and call it the babe's prayer, as to pretend to baptize him, when he is incapable of the first idea essential to the act. When he can answer to God from a "good conscience," baptism will be possible to him, and not before. Is there any other Christian baptism than this which God has defined? Is there a baptism that is not "into Christ," that is not the "response of a good conscience?" Does the gospel institute a baptism radically different from this? A baptism that involves no intelligence, no faith, no conscience, no knowledge of God, no consecration to him? It certainly does, if it authorizes the baptism of babes, for that rite differs from the one which God defines in every particular. But there is but "one Lord, one faith, and one baptism." This baptism a babe never did observe, never can observe. It is wholly impossible to him. He never can respond to God in this rite. There is not skill nor power enough in the whole Papal church to baptize a babe. All the wisdom and power of protestantism is wholly inadequate to this task. The deed cannot be done. To talk about doing it is to ignore the divine account of the rite. To attempt to practice it is to undertake the subversion of God's well-defined institutions.—Baptist Union.