Basic HTML Version
618
would have continued the standing ordinance for admission into the Church of God as the seal
of the covenant of grace, had not baptism been expressly appointed as a substitute for it.”[The
Church of Christ II, p. 98.] It may be admitted that circumcision did acquire a certain typical
significance in the Mosaic period, but it was primarily a sign and seal of the covenant already
made with Abraham. In so far as it was a type it naturally ceased with the appearance of the
antitype, and even as a seal of the covenant it made way for an unbloody sacrament expressly
instituted by Christ for the Church, and recognized as such by the apostles, since Christ had put
an end once for all to the shedding of blood in connection with the work of redemption. In the
light of Scripture the position is entirely untenable, that baptism is connected with the Kingdom
rather than with the Church, and is therefore Jewish rather than Christian. The words of the
institution themselves condemn this view, and so does the fact that on the birthday of the New
Testament Church Peter required of those who were added to it that they should be baptized.
And if it be said that Peter, being a Jew, still followed the example of John the Baptist, it may be
pointed out that Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles, also required that his converts be baptized,
Acts 16:15,33; 18:8; I Cor. 1:16.
(2) There is no explicit command that children must be baptized.
This is perfectly true, but
does not disprove the validity of infant baptism. It should be observed that this objection is
based on a canon of interpretation to which the Baptists themselves are not true when they
hold that Christians are in duty bound to celebrate the first day of the week as their Sabbath,
and that women must also partake of the Lord’s Supper; for these are things not explicitly
commanded. May not the silence of Scripture be construed for, rather than against, infant
baptism? For twenty centuries children had been formally initiated into the Church, and the
New Testament does not say that this must now cease, though it does teach that circumcision
can no more serve for this purpose. The Lord Himself instituted another rite, and on the day of
Pentecost Peter says to those who joined the Church that the promise is unto them and to their
children, and further to as many as the Lord Himself shall call. This statement of Peter at least
proves that he still had the organic conception of the covenant in mind. Moreover, the question
may be raised how the Baptist himself can prove the correctness of his own position by an
express command of Scripture. Does the Bible anywhere command the exclusion of children
from baptism? Does it command that all those who are born and reared in Christian families
must profess their faith before they are baptized? Clearly, there are no such commands.
(3) A closely related objection is, that there is no example of infant baptism in the New
Testament.
It is perfectly true that the Bible does not explicitly say that children were baptized,
though it does apprise us of the fact that the rite was administered to whole households. The
absence of all definite references to infant baptism finds its explanation, at least to a large
extent, in the fact that Scripture gives us a historical record of the missionary work of the