found? And to such inquiries no satisfactory answer has been or can be given. (Ibid, pages 102-104.) CHAPTER III. INFANT BAPTISM Another point in which the Church of Christ and the Jewish Covenant are at exact opposites is that of infant membership. In the Apostolic Church baptism preceded membership, and faith was prerequisite to baptism, consequently there was not, neither could be any place for infant membership. On this account we have in the New Testament neither precept for, nor example of, infant baptism, but on the contrary, much that renders it totally incompatible with apostolic teaching. But we are reminded by the advocates of infant baptism that in some sense baptism stands to its subject and the Church as circumcision did under the Abrahamic covenant. They emphasize that as an unquestioned fact, and seem to think there ought to be something in it, somewhere or somehow, in favor of infant baptism. Some claim that circumcision initiated into the Church under the former dispensation, and that baptism is initiative now; and that infants were formerly initiated by circumcision, and should now be initiated by baptism. Others hold that circumcision was a declaration of church membership under the Jewish dispensation; and that baptism is a declaration of membership now: and that as circumcision was extended to infants, so baptism should be extended. They further claim that infants were put in the Church which was established in the family of Abraham; that the Church of the old dispensation is identical with that of the new; that no law has since been enacted to put them out; and that they were then initiated by circumcision and that, as baptism has superseded circumcision, infants should now be initiated by baptism. To some this is a strong and satisfactory argument, but a few plain, simple facts should decide the question whether the Church of the new covenant is identical with that of the old and that baptism takes the place of circumcision: (1) “The covenant of circumcision” (Acts 7:8) was a covenant with Abraham and to him “that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money” (Gen. 17:12, 13); while the new covenant embraces believers in Jesus Christ, without respect to Abraham’s flesh or money. (See II Cor. 5:16, 17; Gal. 3:26-29; Heb. 8:8-12.) (2) Male children alone were subjects of circumcision. If baptism took the place of circumcision, none but the males should be baptized; but the advocates of infant baptism contend that infants should be baptized regardless of sex, flesh or money.