CIRCUMCISION TO THE RESCUE.
"Let me say," continued the Doctor, "that I have not yet mentioned the
strongest reason for infant baptism."
The remark waked new hope in Sterling.
"What is that reason, Doctor?" asked the father.
"It is the argument of circumcision. In the Old Testament times the
command was that every male child of Jewish parents should be
circumcised. This circumcision made the child a member of the Jewish
church and of the covenant of grace. Now in the Christian dispensation,
after Christ came, circumcision was done away with and baptism was put
in its place, and it is now baptism instead of circumcision that admits
one into the church."
"You are getting into deep water for me, but let me make the effort to
catch your point. You say that in the olden times--"
"Yes, in the days of the Old Testament."
"Well, you say that in those days every male child of Jewish parents was
circumcised and thereby admitted into the Jewish church, and so in the
Christian church every male child--"
"No, not simply every male child, but every child, both male and
female, who was baptized was admitted into the Christian church."
"Well, why this difference? If they circumcised only the males in the
old church, why do you not baptize simply the males in the Christian
church if baptism is put in the place of circumcision?"
"There is no reason why the females, as well as the males, should not be
baptized, but there was a difference in the matter of circumcision."
"This is surely a new kind of argument for infant baptism."
"I think it is a very natural one. God does not change his plans of
dealing with his people. In the first covenant all Jewish children were
admitted into the covenant simply because their parents were members of
the commonwealth or church, and the condition of their admission was
their circumcision. Now if God would admit the children in the old
dispensation, would he not admit them also in the new? And what is the
sign under the new dispensation? Is it circumcision? Oh, no; it is
baptism. That seems plain and unanswerable."
"So then it is not the inherent heavenly nature of the child, but the
fact that one of the parents is a Christian that makes you baptize his
little ones."
"Yes, that is the reason. The parent must of course promise to train the
child aright. Circumcision was the door to the Old Testament church,
while baptism is the door to the New Testament church."
"Here is a foot note in this family Bible on this passage," said the
father. "It says that 'in the old dispensation all the natural children
of Abraham were by circumcision admitted into the Jewish church; so now
all who are the spiritual children of Abraham are by baptism admitted
into the Christian church'."
"Exactly so," exclaimed the brother. "The contrast is between the
natural and the spiritual children of Abraham. The natural descendants
of Abraham, who were of course Jews, were admitted by circumcision. I
think if you wish to run the parallel you must follow that line. In the
Old Testament it was a natural relationship and in the New Testament it
is a spiritual relationship."
"Son, you are surely on the right track. This foot note here says 'all
believers are the spiritual children of Abraham'. Christ said he could
raise up children unto Abraham, who was the father of the faithful.
Every such believer is entitled to baptism and church membership. Why,
that is plain. It runs this way: In the old dispensation all natural
children of Abraham were admitted by circumcision. In the new
dispensation all spiritual children of Abraham--that is, all
believers--are admitted by baptism; but you will notice, Doctor, if the
spiritual children are believers there can be no infants among them."
The brother was busy looking in the subject index of the Bible for
passages about circumcision in the New Testament, and he soon remarked:
"Here is an account of a discussion in a council concerning
circumcision. It is found in the book of Acts, the fifteenth chapter."
"Read it," said the father. "We want light on this subject."
"That council met in Jerusalem and was made up of the apostles and other
disciples to consider certain doctrinal matters," said the Doctor.
Roland began to read the account of the council: "'And certain men which
came down from Judea taught the brethren and said except ye be
circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.'"
"Now you are getting at the core," said the father. "You see they are
discussing whether they have to be circumcised. I guess the apostles
will say they need not be circumcised because baptism has been put in
its place. Read along and see if it does not say that."
He ran his eye down every verse, but could find no such statement.
"Do I understand that they came together in that council to discuss
whether circumcision was necessary for salvation, and that nothing was
said about baptism having been put in its place?" asked Mr. Page.
"It certainly looks that way," said Roland.
"What did that council decide?" asked the father.
"The council decided that it was not necessary for the Gentiles to be
circumcised," answered Mr. Sterling.
"Who were the Gentiles?" asked the father.
"They were all the people who were not Jews."
"You mean that they were discussing whether it was necessary for the
Gentiles to be circumcised, and that it was decided that it was not
necessary, and now do you say that nothing in this discussion was said
about baptism having taken the place of circumcision?"
"Oh, this may have been said in the discussion, but there is no record
of it."
"They would hardly have left it out of the record if there had been any
mention of it in the discussion. I notice here in this chapter they give
the different reasons for their views; but the word baptism is not
mentioned. If baptism had taken the place of circumcision, would it not
have been natural for one of the apostles to have said something like
this: 'Why, of course it is not necessary to be circumcised, because
baptism has taken the place of circumcision.' That would have settled
the question."
"I have another point," said Doctor Vincent, "but let's wait a few
moments for Miss Dorothy's return."
In a few minutes Dorothy rejoined the party and the Doctor remarked:
"I can show you that the Bible teaches plainly that God will take the
faith of the Christian parent for that of the child."
"Do show it to us," said Dorothy, eagerly.
"Paul declares that the faith of a parent makes the child holy and
sanctifies the child."
"I don't know what you mean by sanctifying the child, but show us that
passage, Doctor."
"Let me see if I understand your point, Doctor Vincent," said Mr. Page.
"You assert that the Bible declares that the faith of a parent will make
the child holy?"
"Yes."
"I want to see that passage."
The Doctor turned to 1 Cor. 7:14 and read: "'For the unbelieving husband
is sanctified by the wife and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the
husband; else were your children unclean but now are they holy.'"
"Hello," said Mr. Page, "that sounds like it."
"It is very plain," said the Doctor. "The apostle has said that a
believer must not marry an unbeliever; but then someone may say:
'Suppose a believer has already married an unbeliever, must the
believing wife leave her unbelieving husband?' 'No,' says Paul. 'The
believing wife sanctifies the husband and thus the marriage is not
unclean, but a proper one.' The fact that one of the parties is an
unbeliever does not make the union an unclean one, but he says the child
of such a union is holy. Note that. What does he mean by that word
'holy'? The Jews, according to the old covenant, regarded all who were
not Jews as unclean or unholy; that is, as not partakers of the holy
covenant. But all of Abraham's descendants were holy; that is, were
partakers of the covenant, and Paul here states that the children of
Christian parents, even though only one of the parents was a believer,
were holy."
"But, Doctor," said Dorothy, "I do not see anything about infant baptism
in all that."
"This is related to infant baptism. The point before us now is as to
whether the faith or belief of a parent makes the child holy, and Paul
says it does. The question was asked where the Bible taught that the
faith of the parent was taken for the faith of the infant, and I
mentioned this passage."
"But does this passage teach that?"
"It undoubtedly does. It declares that one believing parent sanctifies
the child; that is, makes the child holy, and that is the same thing."
"I am not much on Scripture," broke in the father, "and I guess I had
better keep my hands off of this part of the argument, and yet that
passage sounded to me as if the writer was trying to keep married
couples from separating simply because one of them might be an
unbeliever."
"That is correct," said the Doctor.
"Exactly," continued Mr. Page. "The writer wanted the Christians who
were married to those who were not Christians to understand that their
marriage was O. K., and that their children were also O. K. Otherwise a
Christian wife might feel that her marriage and her children were
unclean. Is that right, Doctor?"
"Yes, but do not lose sight of the main point, which is that the faith
or holiness of the parent makes the child holy."
"But look here!" exclaimed Dorothy, as if she had made a discovery. "It
says that the believing wife sanctifies not only the child, but also the
unbelieving husband. Do you believe that a believing wife sanctifies an
unbelieving husband?"
"Of course not the husband. A believing wife cannot make an unbelieving
husband holy and a member of the covenant of grace."
"But it says here that the believing wife sanctifies the unbelieving
husband," insisted Dorothy.
"That means that in the case under consideration the marriage must not
be considered an unclean relation so as to make the wife leave the
husband or consider herself involved in an unclean relation."
"When it says the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing
wife, does his sanctification mean becoming a member of the covenant?"
asked Dorothy.
"No, not at all."
"Why, then, do you say that the child who is made holy by the parent is
made a partaker of the covenant? Do the words 'holy' and 'sanctified'
mean the same thing?"
"Yes, they are practically the same."
"It seems clear as a sunbeam to me from that passage," broke in the
father, "that whatever was done to the child by the faith of the
believing parent was also done to the unbelieving husband, for it
plainly says so. Let us have that passage again, daughter."
She read: "'For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing
wife--'"
"There you have it plain," said the father. "And the unbelieving wife is
sanctified by the believing husband, else were your children unclean but
now they are holy."
"And look here!" exclaimed Dorothy, examining the passage closely. "In a
verse or two below it says: 'For how knowest thou, Oh wife, whether thou
shalt save thy husband?'"
"There, now," said the father, "'save thy husband'. He evidently was
not saved by his believing wife. It shows that, even though he was
sanctified by the faith of his wife, yet he was not saved.
Sanctification did not mean much for him, and maybe it did not mean much
either for the children. The writer was trying, I think, to keep those
marriages intact, and I guess he had a hard time of it sometimes. Even
though that husband was sanctified, yet he needed saving. That looks
mightily as if the sanctifying part had reference to the marriage
relation of that husband and wife and not to any spiritual or religious
condition of the husband, and therefore not to anything spiritual as
regards the child."
"Look here," said the Doctor with a smile, "I think Mr. Page will have
to start a commentary."
"I see you have a twinkle in your eye," retorted Mr. Page, "and
consequently I will not extract any compliment from your remark."
The conversation ended at this point. The Doctor stated that an
engagement compelled him to hurry from what to him had been a very
interesting discussion, and that he would be glad to renew it. He bowed
himself out and Dorothy remarked:
"Father, I cannot tell you how strange I feel. I appreciate Doctor
Vincent's efforts to help me to know my duty, but this conversation
tonight has made one thing clear to me, and that is that I can never
join a church that teaches and practices sprinkling and infant baptism."
"Miss Dorothy," said Mr. Sterling, "I think you could join my church,
and I think you ought to do so, even though you do not believe these two
doctrines."
"Daughter, if you won't join the Presbyterian church, I don't know which
way you will look."
"But why, Miss Dorothy, can you not join my church?"
"Because I feel it would be wrong for me to join your church believing
as I do about these matters."
"Wrong for you to join that church, daughter? I can't see where any
wrong would be involved in your joining any decent church."
"Don't you think, father, that it would be wrong for me to join a church
that teaches that infants ought to be baptized and that sprinkling is
baptism, when the Bible seems so clearly to me to teach that infants
ought not to be baptized and that only immersion is baptism? What about
my baptism? I would have to be sprinkled if I joined your church, would
I not, Mr. Sterling?"
"I think you ought to be sprinkled," he replied.
"Do you think I ought to be sprinkled when I think the New Testament
teaches so clearly that immersion is baptism?"
"But, Miss Dorothy, will you set your judgment up against the judgment
of the learned divines and scholars of the churches?"
"I do not set myself up against them, but Dr. Moreland said that each
one of us must study our Bible and go where it led us; and besides, Mr.
Sterling, I have considered all your arguments for sprinkling and all
Dr. Vincent's arguments for infant baptism, and I take for granted that
you have brought out the strongest passages on that side, and yet in the
face of them it seems to me that none of the passages point to
sprinkling and infant baptism, while many passages point clearly to the
baptism only of believers and to immersion as the only baptism. I must
not put away my judgment and go directly against that to follow the
judgment of another, must I? Suppose I should join your church,
believing that your church was doing wrong in putting something else in
the place of Bible baptism; think how uncomfortable I would feel. I
would either have to keep silent about what I believed or else I would
be constantly engaged in argument with the members."
"Maybe that would be a good thing. You might convert some of us to your
way of thinking."
"But is that the right basis on which to select a church? Do you choose
a church without reference to what they or you believe, or do those who
believe other things go together in another denomination?"
"You will never find a church where everybody in it believes exactly the
same thing about Bible teaching."
"Of course not; but I thought you were mentioning the principal
doctrines of your church about which all your members are agreed."
"You are correct about that."
"I cannot get away from the belief that I ought to join that church that
seems to come nearest to holding those truths that I hold."
"Maybe there is no such church, daughter," said the father. "What other
churches are there, Mr. Sterling? I know of a few--the Methodist, the
Episcopal, the Catholic--"
"I am sorry I must leave this charming circle, but let us take up the
other denominations tomorrow evening."
"Good," said the father. "We shall expect you, then, tomorrow evening."