AN ANSWER by Editor

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Nov 17, 1881

AN ANSWER.

By Editor

IT is not customary with religious papers to notice anonymous letters, and if, at any time, we pass them by unnoticed, we shall not consider it necessary to make any apology. We have generally, however, answered questions coming in this manner, as we are more anxious to get the truth before the people than to stand upon formalities. "An Inquirer," in Oakland, writes:—

"You teach that children should not be baptized because they do not understand it. God commanded the Jews to have their children circumcised the eighth day. I do not think that eight-day-old children could understand any better then than they can now. You keep the old Sabbath. Why not keep that law also?"

1. If that were the only objection to infant baptism the discussion would be brought into a very narrow compass compared to what it now is. It is sufficient to answer: That was a national arrangement, built up on natural descent, which the gospel is not. Consequently by a specific commandment parents were required to circumcise their children at the age of eight days. Circumcision was typical, but not of baptism. The two are in no wise related, and are not subject to the same laws. Baptism represents the burial of one who has died to sin; it is connected with repentance and is related to the remission of sin. It is always presented as a commandment to be obeyed—not as a blessing to be passively received. Not a single statement in the New Testament concerning baptism can be reasonably construed to make it apply to infants.

2. The second point is equally easy to answer. "The old Sabbath" is a very old institution, coming down from the time of the creation, when it was sanctified as the rest-day of the Creator. It is as ancient as marriage. If we were to ask Inquirer why the law of marriage comes down into the Christian dispensation and that of circumcision does not, he could readily find a reasonable answer. But marriage and the Sabbath originated together, in Eden before the fall of man; neither of them is subject to the law or the limitations of types, which were instituted because man had fallen.

If man had never sinned, marriage and the Sabbath would always have been kept in a holy manner. But if man had not sinned, circumcision would never have existed. Cannot Inquirer understand this difference? If he had let us know his name and address we would put our pamphlet on Christian Baptism into his hands, where the subject of his question is answered fully.

We should greatly marvel how, in this land of Bibles and churches, people can have such limited views of Bible truths and facts as not to discern the difference between a moral institution—one growing out of the will of God alone, before the fall of man, and a typical institution—one growing out of the fall of man, and existing only because of man's rebellion; we say we should marvel how this can be, only that we know that the Bible as a book of directions is greatly neglected, and often made the object of a blind dependence, rather than of careful study.