Circumcision and Baptism
Dr. D. Featly, in trying to defend infant sprinkling in 1647 made ten arguments in a section of his book, which he titled, “Children’s Baptism Justified.” Three of these have already been examined and been shown to be wanting. The fourth argument is a repetition of the one he made earlier at Southwark when he attempted to prove that circumcision in the Old Testament justifies infant sprinkling in the New. He wrote that “the children of Christians are as capable of baptism as the children of the Jews were of circumcision” (47).
The problem with what Featly advocates here is that the two are not parallel in every respect; he is using a superficial reading of the text to try to support a case that he actually does not have. What is Paul’s purpose in writing Colossians 2:11-12? The apostle begins earlier in the text by declaring that in the Father and in Christ “are hidden all of the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col. 2:3). Evidently some were teaching otherwise because Paul warns them not to be deceived by “persuasive words” (v. 4). They had received Christ properly and needed to continue in Him, to walk in His ways, and to be established in the faith (vv. 6-7).
Then he warns them again not to let anyone cheat them “through philosophy and empty deceit,” according to things that are not according to Christ (v. 8). Every Christian is complete in Jesus (v. 10). Some, however, had either already said or might say in the future that the Christian was not circumcised as the Jews were. Paul’s answer is that the Christian has been circumcised. So there is a comparison, but it is not one of comparing Christian children to Israelite children. The purpose is to show that in Christ all are complete. “But Christians aren’t circumcised; so they don’t have what the Jews had.” Paul affirms that, in a sense, we do have circumcision; it occurs when we are baptized and our sins are removed.
Was Paul arguing that baptism is identical with circumcision in content, form, or applicability? No. His only point of comparison is what he defines in verse 11: “In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ.” Notice that Paul made neither the argument nor the application that Featly did. In fact, there are glaring points concerning the two actions that are obviously not identical.
First, only Jewish males were circumcised, but both genders are baptized. Second, the Jews performed physical circumcision eight days after physical birth. God performs spiritual circumcision at the very moment of spiritual birth—putting off the body of the sins of the flesh. Third, the baby did not give his consent to be circumcised nor even yet believed (by Featly’s own admission), but for baptism to be valid, the individual being baptized must have “faith in the working of God” (v. 12). The only similarity between circumcision and baptism is that they both remove something—circum-cision removes a piece of flesh; baptism removes all sins. Only those who have faith in the working of God can receive the spiritual circumcision. Babies and infants do not have that ability.
The Anabaptists did not point these things out; instead they said (correctly) that in the Old Testament there was a command to circumcise children, but there is no command to baptize children. Featly responded with three replies. He said that there was no command to baptize women, either, which is foolish. The gospel was commanded to be preached to everyone (Mark 16:15-16). Furthermore, we have examples of women being baptized, such as Lydia (Acts 16:15). We have no record of even one child being baptized. Featly then argues that there is no command “for re-baptizing any that were baptized in their infancy, which the Anabaptists practice…” (48).
One cannot escape the hilarity of such a claim. Since neither Jesus nor the apostles baptized infants, how could there be a command to re-baptize them? In the second place, sprinkling is not baptism; so they were never baptized at all. The Greek verb, baptizo, means “to dip, to plunge, to immerse,” as any Greek lexicon can verify. No one who was sprinkled as an infant has ever been baptized, period. But even if (by some incredibly lengthy stretch of the imagination), sprinkling did count as baptism, being re-baptized would remain authorized. Some men had been immersed in Acts 19. They were taught John’s baptism; when they learned about Christ fully, Paul made sure they were baptized again. If one’s initial baptism is not valid (such as not having had faith), then one is authorized to be baptized again. Featly’s first response to the Anabaptists fails twice over.
His second response seems to be that the practice of admitting people to the “church” of the Old Testament is still in force, though the form of it has changed. Now, he says, it is through baptism instead of circumcision; “nothing can be alleaged [sic] why children should then be by circumcision admitted to the Church, and not now as well by baptisme” [sic] (48). He continually repeats himself, and this is an assertion; this article previously showed in what ways baptism and circumcision are alike and dissimilar.
His third response covers no new ground, either. He repeats that it would be blasphemous to deny the children of Christian parents entrance into the kingdom, but the assumption is that they are outside the kingdom to begin with and in need of salvation.
The fifth argument simply reverts to Genesis 17:7 once again, along with Romans 4:13. Nothing is said here that was not already included in the Southwark conversation. For those who remember phonograph records, he is like the needle stuck in one of the grooves—just endlessly looping himself.
The Cloud and the Sea
Argument #6 finally breaks new ground, and it turns out to be strange turf. Featly cites 1 Corinthians 10: 1, but he uses verse 2 as well to make his case:
Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.
He does not, however, use these verses the way that Paul did. The apostle also referred to the spiritual food (manna) that God’s people ate in the wilderness and the water that flowed from the spiritual Rock, which was Christ (1 Cor. 10:3-4). Paul’s main idea is that, even though Israel possessed all of these advantages, they died in the wilderness (v. 5). He exhorts Christians not to fall as our spiritual predecessors did through lust, idolatry, sexual immorality, or tempting Christ (1 Cor. 10:6-11).
Featly, however, would have his readers think that Paul is making an argument for infant baptism, which ignores the context entirely. He advocates that children, under the Law, were baptized typically (as a type of what was to come). If, then, they were baptized as a type, then they should be baptized for real under the gospel.
But children were typically baptized under the law, for they with their fathers were under the cloud, and passed through the red sea ; and their washing with rain from the cloud prefigures our washing in baptisme… (50).
His conclusion, then, is that “children are capable of true and reall [sic] baptisme under the Gospel” (50). The only problem is that Paul did not make this application. Baptism was not a command that God ever gave under the Law of Moses—for children or adults. If Featly could have cited such a command, he would have proudly displayed it instead of omitting any reference to it altogether. Paul used this event to show that on one occasion all of Israel was baptized, but it was not in response to any command that God gave to His people. In fact, there is no reason to suspect that they had any inkling that it would serve as a type.
Someone might wonder, “But still, since infants were present, doesn’t it prove that infants today should be baptized?” Is Paul focusing on infants at all in 1 Corinthians 10:1-4? No. He is talking about Israel as a nation, and children were part of the covenant (whereas in Christianity they do not need to be redeemed). What Featly could never understand is that circumcision and baptism were for two different purposes.
Circumcision was not practiced in order for anyone to receive forgiveness of sins; baptism is designed for that purpose. Peter taught on the Day of Pentecost that the Jews present should repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins (Acts 2:38). He later taught that baptism saves us (1 Peter 3:21)—not by itself, of course, but for the one who believes and has repented. Baptism, then, has to do with sins being washed away and removed. Circumcision had no such purpose. It did not remove anyone’s sins. Not once in all the Bible is there any hint of such a notion. Its function was to make them part of God’s covenant.
Someone might ask, “Then why does Paul compare the two in Colossians 2:11-12?” Again, his purpose was to show that in some respects we have things in common with our Israelite forerunners. Circumcision and baptism do share one element in common—the result of the action. Already mentioned were the type and the fulfilment. In circumcision a piece of flesh is removed. In baptism, sins are removed. The result of circumcision was that such an individual, by that act, was made a part of a nation which enjoyed a special relationship with God. The result of baptism is that the one who believed and was baptized was added to the church (Acts 2:41, 47), thus giving him access to special privileges (1 Peter 2:5, 9).
However, despite this feature both share in common, baptism and circumcision are still two separate acts with two separate purposes, associated with two separate covenants. To try to justify infant sprinkling by citing the crossing of the Red Sea involves a violent twisting of the Scriptures for a sectarian purpose.
Contradiction
The seventh argument contradicts one made earlier, which shall shortly be evident. In logical form, the syllogism used is:
All they who belong to Christ and his kingdome ought to be received into the Church by baptisme.
But children belong to Christ and his kingdome, as Christ himself teacheth us, Mark 10. 14 and Luke 18. 16.
Ergo, children ought to be admitted into the Church by baptisme (51).
He quotes the verses where Jesus said that children should be allowed to come to Him and He took them in His arms and blessed them.
The Anabaptists rightly called attention to the fact that Jesus blessed the children (which included infants—Luke 18:15-17), He did not sprinkle them. Featly could not help but admit that fact, but then supposed that Jesus had His disciples sprinkle them, as per John 4:1-2. In other words, Jesus didn’t do the “baptizing,” but His disciples did. It would be hard to argue with the principle, but since He had already taken them up in His arms—since He was that personally involved—why not just sprinkle some water on them at the same time? The problem for D. Featly is that nothing is mentioned at all about the infants being sprinkled—either by Jesus or His disciples. It is only his imagination that makes every situation into one of “baptizing” children.
But he has a worse problem—and that is one of contradiction. Logically, A cannot equal not A. It cannot both have a property and yet lack it at the same time. The number 2 has certain properties. It is an even number, a prime number, and it cannot ever be an odd number. It cannot be 2 and not 2 at the same time (with the same definition). So, consider this last syllogism. Children belong to Christ and His kingdom; so they must be admitted into the church by baptism. But this statement contradicts Featly’s earlier position, which is that children are lost.
Remember when he wrote that children needed the remedy for the disease of original sin which is in children, as well as adults? He stated that all had sinned in Adam and were by nature the children of wrath (22). So children belong to Christ and His kingdom, but they also are full of sin. Both of these cannot be true. Either they are so evil that they must be baptized for forgiveness or they are so pure they are part of the king-dom and cannot be denied baptism. They cannot be full of unforgiven sin and also in the kingdom.
Or does Featly mean to claim that the kingdom con-sists of those plagued by “original sin,” who are children of wrath? He is wrong on both counts. They have no original sin or sins of their own to be removed by baptism. On the other hand, purity needs no forgiveness.
Children cannot be vile and not vile at the same time. Children cannot be pure (belong to Christ and His kingdom) and not pure simultaneously. Featly has a genuine problem here; he has contradicted himself, which should be obvious to all who read his opinions.
Apostolic Tradition
Arguments 8 and 10 will conclude this series next week. Argument #9 is a reprisal of the faulty notion that baptizing children began with the apostles. This is related to the third argument (46). Here Featly asserts that all apostolic traditions ought to be revered and retained in the church. Among other verses he cites 2 Thessalonians 2:15: “Therefore, brethren stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.” Needless to say, everyone ought to agree wholeheartedly with this principle.
The second part of his syllogism states simply: “But the Baptisme of children is an Apostolicall tradition truly so called” (54). He therefore concludes that it ought to be continued today. One wonders, when someone makes such a case, if he does not notice that he offered no proof for the second proposition. Whereas he listed Scriptures for the first claim, he gave not even one for the second. There is a reason for that—none exist. The Anabaptists reminded Featly of that fact.
His reply involved citing Augustine (A.D. 354-430), Prosper (390-455), and Jerome (347-420) as authorities who describe the custom of baptizing infants. Also mentioned as a proponent of infant baptism is Cyprian (200-258) who advocated that it be done before the eighth day (54). Then he refers to an unauthorized council of men who really wanted to enforce the practice; they decreed that a parent who would deny baptism “as soon as” a child comes out of womb—well, “let him be accursed”! Origen (185-254) said the church received the tradition of baptism of infants because of Psalm 51:5. Augustine said it was “the custom of our Mother the Church.” He also affirmed that the practice preceded any church council dictum. Interestingly, he added that “no man can tell when it began” (55). We know when it did not begin—in the New Testament. For that reason not a single one of these “fathers” listed even one Scripture to authorize infant “baptism.”
Featly thinks that, since no one can find the origin of the practice, it must have been started by the apostles. How silly is that? Christians suffered several waves of persecution during the first three centuries. Who knows when a great many departures from the faith took place? But unless this or any other practice can be found implicitly or explicitly in the New Testament, we cannot engage in it or claim apostolic authority or tradition for it. D. Featly stands defeated once again.