05.04.2013 Views

The Conservative Reformation and Its Theology - Saint Mary ...

The Conservative Reformation and Its Theology - Saint Mary ...

The Conservative Reformation and Its Theology - Saint Mary ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

none of them are specifically mentioned in the baptismal commission; in<br />

other words, there is a generic express comm<strong>and</strong> to baptize infants on the<br />

one h<strong>and</strong>, <strong>and</strong> there is no specific express comm<strong>and</strong> on the other either as<br />

regards sex or age.<br />

d. Infant membership, sealed by a sacramental rite, was established<br />

under the Old Testament. If it had been designed to abolish infant<br />

membership under the New Dispensation, it would have been necessary to<br />

do it in so many words. <strong>The</strong> question fairly put, then, is not, "Where is<br />

infant Baptism enjoined in the New Testament?" but, "Where is it<br />

forbidden?"<br />

e. Infant Baptism was practised by the Jews in New Testament times.<br />

Lightfoot, the greatest of the old rabbinical scholars, says, in his Harmony<br />

on John: 362 "<strong>The</strong> baptizing of infants was a thing as commonly known <strong>and</strong><br />

as commonly used before John's coming, <strong>and</strong> at the time of his coming,<br />

<strong>and</strong> subsequently, as anything holy that was used among the Jews, <strong>and</strong><br />

they were as familiarly acquainted with infant Baptism as they were with<br />

infant circumcision." And this he proves by abundant citations from the<br />

Talmud <strong>and</strong> the old rabbinical writers. It is inconceivable, therefore, that in<br />

such a state of things the Apostles should not have forbidden infant<br />

Baptism, if it were not meant that it should be administered.<br />

f. <strong>The</strong> argument, a fortiori: If in the Old Testament, comparatively<br />

restricted as its range was, infants were embraced in the covenant, much<br />

more in the New Testament, broader <strong>and</strong> more gracious than the Old as it<br />

is, would they be embraced. But infants are embraced in the Old, much<br />

more than in the New.<br />

g. That is as really Scriptural which is by just <strong>and</strong> necessary<br />

consequence deduced from Scripture, as that which is stated in it in so<br />

many words. When the Bible says: "<strong>The</strong>re is but one God," it means just<br />

as much that the gods of the heathen are false, as if it were said in so many<br />

words. 2. It is urged that a covenant requires Consciousness <strong>and</strong> intelligence<br />

on the part of those whom it embraces; but infants can have no<br />

consciousness of a covenant, therefore they cannot be embraced in one.<br />

362 Opera, 1686. Vol. I. p. 390.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!