James Haldane’s book was originally entitled, “Reasons Of A Change Of Sentiment And Practice On The Subject Of Baptism”, first [the second edition of which, I discovered, was], published in Edinburgh, Scotland, in 1809. It has now been reprinted as “The Covenant And Baptism” by Particular Baptist Heritage Books (2023) in beautifully bound hardback of size 5.25in x 7.75in and about 200 pages. The Contents-pages helpfully list down not only the chapter headings but also the various points developed in the body of the book. Longer paragraphs in the original have been broken up into shorter ones, making the reading easy. Surprisingly, no biography of the author is given, which would have made the book more helpful to today’s readers.
In the Introduction of the book, the author describes his journey from being a paedobaptist to become a baptist. He had been baptizing infants because of the belief that there was a connection between the Abrahamic covenant and the new covenant, the sign of baptism having replaced the sign of circumcision. The evidence for infant baptism was eroded as he studied the subject biblically and from church history. He, therefore, ceased baptising infants and soon became convinced that it was his duty to be baptised. The fruit of his study on the subject form the substance of the book.
The first chapter shows the meaning of the word “baptize”. The word “baptize” has the primary meaning of “immerse” or “plunge”. Although the word is also used in a secondary, figurative, way in Scripture, the primary meaning should prevail. When Christ commanded His disciples to baptize, the word should be understood in its original and primary sense. The Greek Church, which understands its own language, has always taken the word to mean immersion. The argument from the practice of infant baptism in history is found to be weak.
The second chapter considers the subjects of baptism. The Lord’s commission to the church establishes the baptism of believers only. Believers alone are the proper subjects of baptism, as shown by the examples in Scripture, and from the significance of the ordinance, which include: (i) our fellowship with Christ in His death and resurrection; (ii) our regeneration; (iii) the remission of our sins; and (iv) our separation to God. Various passages of Scripture raised in favour of infant baptism are found to be baseless.
The third chapter is the longest, constituting about half the content of the book. It deals with the claim that baptism is intrinsically connected with the Abrahamic covenant. The author observes that many errors have arisen from making too much of the connection between the new covenant and the old. It is improper to call the Abrahamic covenant the covenant of grace, and equate circumcision with baptism. Circumcision was performed on males only while baptism is for both males and females. Circumcision did not require the faith of Abraham to carry out while baptism is for those who have faith. “The covenant at Sinai, could never be called a covenant of works, for it was a type or shadow of the new covenant, and not opposed to it, although it was thus perverted by the Jews (p. 98).” “…the new covenant, as opposed to that made at Sinai, was ratified with the blood of Christ, Matt. 26:28 and which consequently did not exist before it was shed (p. 99).” These quotes not only show the baptist view of “gradually revealed in the Old Testament, and finally fulfilled in the New Testament” but also counters the claim of some that the Covenant of Works was ‘republished in the Sinaitic Covenant’.
In Genesis 17, God’s covenant with Abraham was that Christ should spring from him. Accompanying this great promise were three subordinate promises: (i) that he should be the father of many nations (v. 5); (ii) that God would be a God to him and to his seed (v. 7); (iii) that he would give the land of Canaan to him and to his seed for an everlasting possession (v. 8). These were literally fulfilled in the nation of Israel, and are being fulfilled spiritually in the new covenant age. Solomon was a type of Christ (p. 109). Abraham was literally the father of a multitude of nations, but also the father of all those who have faith in Christ (Rom. 4:16-17; Gal. 3:29; pp. 110-111). Jehovah was a God to the nation of Israel, but there is a higher sense in which he is the God of His people (Heb. 11:16; 8:10; 2 Cor. 3:3; 1 Pet. 2:9-10; p. 112). The land of Canaan foreshadowed the heavenly inheritance (Heb. 11:10, 16; Col. 3:24; Gal. 3:29; Eph. 1:3; pp. 114-115).
All arguments linking circumcision to baptism are inconclusive. Those who try to prove infant baptism from the Old Testament, follow the same course as those who try to prove the propriety of the alliance between the church and the world. Infant baptism is the very foundation of national churches (p. 166). When we are clear about the separation of believers from the world, we will see the inconsistency of administering baptism to any but believers.
Chapter 4 shows briefly that the argument for infant baptism from church history is inconclusive. In fact, if impartially considered, the evidence from church history is much against infant baptism. It is strange that those who try to prove infant baptism from church history do not pay equal attention to the testimony of the early fathers that the meaning of the word ‘baptize’ is ‘immersion’.
The Conclusion of the book summarizes the arguments used in each of the previous chapters. It entreats brethren who differ on baptism to seriously examine God’s word in order to come to a correct understanding of the ordinance. It beseeches brethren who are likeminded with the author on baptism to let the effects of this ordinance appear in all their life — to be more exemplary in conduct, more spiritual, more dead to the world, more of the spirit of Christ, more earnest for the conversion of sinners, more serious in training up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
The sincere and eirenic spirit of this book makes it suitable to be given to paedobaptist brethren to show why we differ from them on baptism. It will strengthen baptists against being troubled by the arguments of the paedobaptists on infant baptism, and remind them of the importance of valuing this ordinance in the right spirit.
*****