Basic HTML Version
623
guilt of sin in justification, and for the removal of the pollution of sin in sanctification, which is,
however, imperfect in this life. And if this is what is signified, then it is also that which is sealed.
And if it be said, as it is sometimes in our Reformed literature, that baptism seals the promise(s)
of God, this does not merely mean that it vouches for the truth of the promise, but that it
assures the recipients that they are the appointed heirs of the promised blessings. This does
not necessarily mean that they are already in principle in possession of the promised good,
though this is possible and may even be probable, but certainly means that they are appointed
heirs and will receive the heritage, unless they show themselves unworthy of it and refuse it.
Dabney calls attention to the fact that seals are often appended to promissory covenants, in
which the bestowment of the promised good is conditional.
But baptism is more than a sign and seal; it is as such also a means of grace. According to
Reformed theology it is not, as the Roman Catholics claim, the means of initiating the work of
grace in the heart, but it is a means for the strengthening of it or, as it is often expressed, for
the increase of grace. This gives rise to a rather difficult question in connection with infant
baptism. It can readily be seen how baptism can strengthen the work of faith in the adult
recipient, but it is not so apparent how it can operate as a means of grace in the case of
children who are entirely unconscious of the significance of baptism and cannot yet exercise
faith. The difficulty, with which we are confronted here, naturally does not exist for the small
number of Reformed scholars who deny that baptism merely strengthens an antecedent
condition of grace, and claim that it “is a means for the impartation of grace in a specific form,
and for the specific end of our regeneration and ingrafting in Christ.”[This position is defended
at length in a work entitled The Divine Life in the Church, pp. 9-196.] All the others must, of
course, face the problem. Luther also wrestled with that problem. He made the efficacy of
baptism dependent on the faith of the recipient; but when he reflected on the fact that infants
cannot exercise faith, he was inclined to believe that God by His prevenient grace wrought an
incipient faith in them through baptism; and, finally, he referred the problem to the doctors of
the Church. Reformed theologians solve the problem by calling attention to three things, which
may be regarded as alternatives, but may also be combined. (1) It is possible to proceed on the
assumption (not the certain knowledge) that the children offered for baptism are regenerated
and are therefore in possession of the semen fidei (the seed of faith); and to hold that God
through baptism in some mystical way, which we do not understand, strengthens this seed of
faith in the child. (2) Attention may also be called to the fact that the operation of baptism as a
means of grace is not necessarily limited to the moment of its administration any more than
that of the Lord’s Supper is limited to the time of its celebration. It may in that very moment
serve in some mysterious way to increase the grace of God in the heart, if present, but may also
be instrumental in augmenting faith later on, when the significance of baptism is clearly
understood. This is clearly taught in both the Belgic and the Westminster Confession. (3) Again,