IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-S) 1.0 I.I 1.25 2.8 145 1^ ^ |M 2.0 1= U II 1.6 Photographic Sciences Corporation .\ m ^^ '^ >> 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 ^ V^ CIHM Microfiche Series (Monographs) ICMH Collection de microfiches (monographies) Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut canadien de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notes / Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. ~~Z| Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur n n n Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagee Covers restored arid/or laminated/ Couverture restauree et/ou pelticulee Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Caites geographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Relie avec d'autres documents D a Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distorsion le long de la marge interieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout^es lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, iorsque cela etait possible, ces pages n'ont pas ete filmees. Additional comments;/ Commentares supplementaires; L'Institut a microfilm^ ie meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a et6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-€tre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite. ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mothode normale de f ilmage sont indiques ci-dessous. □ Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur □ Pages damaged/ Pages endommagees □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaurees et/ou pelticultes Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages decolorees, tachetees ou pique piquees □ Pages detached/ Pages detschees I y] Showthrough/ I I Transparence □ Quality of print varies/ Qualite inegale de Time impression n Continuous pagination/ Pagination continue □ Includes index(es)/ Comprend un (des) index Title on header taken from:/ Le titre de I'en t6te provient: issue/ de la livraison □ Title page of Page de titre □ Caption of issue/ Titre de depart de la li vraison □ Masthead/ Gener ique (periodiques) de la livraison This Item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filme au taux de reduction mdique ci-dessous. 10X 14X 11 18X y 22X ?6X 30X 12X 16X 20X 2AX 28 X 22X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: National Library of Canada L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grdce d la g^n6rosit6 de: Bibliothdque nationale du Canada 'li he images appearing here are the best quality rossible considairing the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrbted impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. AIS other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol —»> (meaning "COIM- TIIMUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method : Les images suivsntes ont 6td reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte xenu de la condition et de la nettetd de l'exemplaire film6, et qn conform:t6 avec Igs conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimde sont film6s en commen?ant par le premier plat et en tarminant soi* par la dernidre page qui comporte une ampreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont film^s en commenpant par la premidre page qui comporte ure ampreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole — »► signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbole V signifie "FIN". Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent §tre filmds d des taux de reduction dUffdrents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour §tre reproduit en un seui clich6, il est film6 d partir de I'angle sup^rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images n^cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mdthode. 1 2 3 22t 1 2 3 4 5 6 ■"■-»-«^; ^ ** *^i' INFANT BAPTISM SCRIPTURAL: AM) f^.\ IMMERSION UNNECESSARY. ■.*: ll WITH AN APPENDIX ON RE-BAPTIZING. BY THE REV. JOHN HANNVH. M. |-*i TORONTO: * PRINTED AND PUBLlSHBiD AT THE WESLEYAN BOOK-ROOM, KINO .STRHET.FAHT, 1868. % i INFANT BAPTISM SCRIPTURAL ; AND IMMERSION UNNECESSARY. WITH AN APPENDIX ON RE-BAPTIZING. BY THE REV. JOHN HANNAH. TORONTO: PRINTED AND PUBLISHED AT THE WESLEYAN BOOK-ROOM, Kn^G 3TEEET r^ST. 1868. ADVERTISEMENT. The following pages are designed for the benefit of two classes of people, — those who are desirous of information on the subjects of which they treat ; and those who are in doubt as to whether their own baptism, in infancy, and by sprinkling, be valid. The Pamphlet is intended chiefly, though not exclusively, for the benefit of the young. J. H. A Fl the Ne few pa| dicated many 3 are moi sound, sole ol even 01 confine( sufficiei that in pouring warram We baptism We and nc take oi how w of bapt would INFANT BAPTISM SCRIPTURAL; AND IMMERSION UNNECESSARY. A FULL examination of baptism, tlie initiatory rite of the New Covenant, would recjuiro a volum(;, rather than a few pages. But we limit ourselves to the two points in- dicated in the title, because it is in reg:»rd to these that many young people, who have been baptized in infancy, are most frequently distui-bed by the plausible, but un- sound, reasonings of their over-zealoua neighbours. Our sole object is self-defence. Much more rnight })e said, even on the two questions to which our observations are confined ; but the considerations about to be advanced are sufficient, we think, to convince any unprejudiced person that infant baptism, administered either by sprinkling or pouring, is perfectly valid ; and that there is no Scriptural warrant for limiting the ordinance, c adult believers. "We proceed, then, to the consideration of the mode of baptism. "We are told tliaO " the word bajdism means dipping, and nothing else." But this is not correct, as we shall take occasion to show. But supposing it were correct, how would it prove that we are confined to this method of baptizing, unless we employ a form of argument which would prove it wrong to take the Lord's Supper at any 6 INFANT nAPTISM 8CRIPTURAL : time but at iiiglit? Unqnestional.ly, our Lord instituted this Hacraincnt iu " tiie same niyht in which He was be- tmyed." Indeed, the element of time is imi)lied in its very name. And yet the Bai)ti8ts have no hesitation about receiving the " Lord's Supper" in a monung. How do tlioy justify tlieir conduct ? How easy would it be to Bay, reasoning on their own principle, ''Supper signifies an evenhig meal, and nothing but an evening meal ; and therefore wo are bound to receive this ordinance only at night!" The proper answer, of course, is, that time is not essential to the ordiiumce ; and therefore if, in a proper spirit, wo partake of bread and wine in commemoration of Christ'B death, wo are allowed to consult our own con- venience in regard to time, and to observe this sacrament either mcming, noon, or night. We accept the answer as perfectly satisfactory. It is the only answer that either a Baptist or any one else could give, to justify his conduct in receiving the Lord's Supper in a morning. But will not the same principle establish the validity of sprinklin^ or pouring in baptism, even on the admission that the word primarily refers to dipping? We are told that mode is implied in the very name of the initiatory rite ; that to baptize means "to dip, and nothing else." Now, suppose this were true, (which it is not,) might we not reply, " Is mode more deeply engrained in the word 'baptism' than ti7tie in the word 'supper?'" If, then, our common sense enables us to perceive that the element of time in the Lord's Supper is not essential to the ordinance, — and if our Christian liberty allows us to eliminate it, and partake of the sacrament of the Supper at any time of the day, why sliould we not be allowed, on the same principle, to eliminate the eleiaent of mode in regard to baptism, and to ii > AXD IMMERSION UNNECESSARY. iiiHtitutcd le was be- lied in its hesitation ng. How 1 it be to r significH deal ; and ;e only at ime is not a proper em oration own con- sacrament answer as t either a s conduct But will iprinklin _, that the that mode ij that to , 6n])pose eply, " Is ism' than ion sense e in the , — and if I partake le day, — nciple, to n, and to I consult our convenience or the climate, by adminiatering the rite either by sprinkling, pouring, or inuner.sion 1 The man who insists on inmiersion as the only valid mod(3 of baptism, on the ground that mode is insepai-ably connected with the meaning of the word, ought, in order to be con- sistent, to insist that, as supper means an evening meal, and nothing else, every one is bound to receive the sacra- ment of the Supper at night only ; and that the man who partakes of bread and wine, professedly to commemorate the love of Christ in dying for him, even in the most grateful and confiding spirit, at any other time than even- ing, does not really receive this holy sacrament. Hitherto we have proceeded on the admission that dxp- ping is the synonyme of baptism ; and have proved that, even if it were so, immersion cannot be regarded as es- sential to the validity of the rite ; unless we reason on a principle which would make it unlawful for a man to receive the Lord's Supper at any other time but nt night. We now take other ground, and affirm that dii)ping is not the synonyme of baptism ; that the term is used in many cases, both in the New Testament and in the Greek Classics, in which we are quite certain that there was, and could be, no dipping. The advocates of immersion are very fond of appealing to the Greek Classics, in proof of their statement that "baptism means dipping, and nothing else." Dr. Carson says, "I begin with the Classics, and end with the Clas- sics at the time of the institution." It may be well enough to ^' begin with the Classics;" but why '^ end with the Classics'?" Have the writers of the New Testament no right to be heai'd on this question 1 Or did the Doctor shrewdly conjecture, that he would be able to make out 8 INFANT BAPTISM SCRIPTURAL; his case more plausibly from the Greek Classics than from the New Testament? But, to let that pass for the present, we ask, What would be the real weight of the argument from the Classics, even if it entirely favoured immersion 1 Suppose its advocates could i)roduce even hundreds of pas- sages from heathen Greek writings, in which the words rendered baptism and bajytize were used in the sense of dipping ; and that their opponents were unable to adduce a single 'exception to this usage; would this settle the questio ', proving that we are wrong, and that they are right? If an affirmative answer be given, we ask, Is, then, the meaning of a term in the Greek Classics to settle absolutely, and in all cases, its New Testament sig- nification? Surely no one would affirm, that because a Greek word bore a certain meaning in the writings of Homer, this must therefore be its precise meaning in the Epistles of St. Paul ! Unquestionably, the writers of the New Testament conveyed information which had not pre- viously been communicated by the heathen Greeks. But how could they convey this new information, unless they either coined new words, or used existing words in a new or modified sense? Surely the Greek words which are rendered by the English terms law, repentance, justifica- tion, 8anctifi,cation, angel, spirit, and many more, are not to be understood as bearing precisely the same meaning in the New Testament which they bear in the writings of the heathen poets and phUosophers. Who would admit such a principle of interpretation ? Then, if even the Greek words which are rendered 6ap < AND IMMERSION VINNECESSARY. 11 )ly the beach a, there was have not al- Iways found ent Greeks. g are syno- md whether, interpreted nore impor- ih we have lot so much sd the word, Testament, es will not ; otherwise aer of texts where we ien no dip- )r our argu- f, brethren, bat all our hrough the cloud and were bap- may be a is certain, says not a to the ac- ) sea, with a view to ascertain whether it supplies tis with any in- formation as to the mode in which they were baptized. From that account we learn, with absolute certainty, that they were not dipped. Indeed, it would be barbarous and unmeaning to substitute dip for baptize, and say that " they were dipped unto Moses." But why not, if, as is affirmed, dijyping is a synonyme of haptisw^ ? Here, then, we have a clear case of baptism without dipping ; for Paul says that the Israelites were baptized, and Moses says that they were not dipped. This passage has given the advo- cates of dipping great trouble, and they have offered va- rious expositions of it, (some of them curious enough,) with a view to get rid of the difficulty. Dr. Gill supposes that the sea stood above their heads, and that "they seemed to be immersed in it." **Seemed to be immersed." Then he admits that they were not really immersed, after all ; so that according to this explanation they must have had a " dry baptism." Dr. Carson says that " the sea stood on each side, and the cloud covered them." We wonder where he got his facts: not from Moses, we are sure. How the learned Doctor could imagine that he had made it out, by this curious exposition, (even allowing hiiii his facts,) that the Israelites had received a real dip at the passage of the Red Sea, we cannot imagine. Ac- cording to this exposition, they merely walked through a tunnel, the sides of which were formed by water, and the top by the cloud, — a " dry baptism" still. Now whether we can give any satisfactory explanation of the mode in which the Israelites "were baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea," or not, is quite immateinal to our argument ; the design of which is to prove that there may be baptism without dipping. In regard to the pas- 12 INFANT BAPTISM SCRIPTURAL; [t; sage through the «ea, we learn two or three facts fi-om the narrative of Moses and from the 77th Psalm, which m the opinion of some, may possibly throw some light on the question of r,^ode. From Moses we leam that there was a -a strong wind;" and from the Psalm, that there was a thunder-storm, accompanied by heavy rain, during the passage. Then should we not be warranted in saying that the Israelites were baptized with the spray from the sea, and with the heavy rain which fell from the cloud ? -which would be baptism by sprinkling, or, at most, pouring; not dipping, ceit^tinly. We care but little whether this exposition be accepted or rejected. Indeed, any attempt to expound the mode is on our part quite a work of superei-ogation ; not adding the slightest weight to our argument, even if deemed entirely satisfactory. Will any one, then, who defers to the authority of Holy Scripture venture to affirm, when a person has been solemnly sprink' led with water in the name of the Holy Trinity, that he haa not been baptized, mei^ly because he has not been dxppedi If so, his controversy is with St. Paul, not with us ; for Paul says that the Israelites were baptized and we are quite sure from the history that they were ru.i dipped. ' On the day of Pentecost there was baptism, but cer- tainly not dipping. This great event was predicted by our Lord's forerunner, at an early period of his ministry m the following terms: " I indeed baptize you with water; but He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire. St. Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles, has recorded the accomplishment of this prediction, in the following words: "And when the day of Pentecost was fully come" they were all with one accord in one phice. And sud' ■ii I AND IMMEIISION UNWEC'ESSAttV, 13 ■ee facts fi-om Psalm, which, some light on m that there na, that there rain, during ted in saying >ray from the » the cloud ? or, at most, re but little Indeed, any juite a work 'eight to our ^ Will any ly Scripture, mnly sprink- nity, that he as not been ul, not with aptized, and jy were net w, but cer- redicted by is ministry, with water; it, and with as recorded e foUowinsr fully come, And sud- denly there came a sound from heaven as of a nitihing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were Bitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them." Was this, then, a real baptism] Unquestionably it was; for it is admitted on all hands that it was the fulfilment of John's prediction, " He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire." Then how were the disciples " baptized ■with the Holy Ghost, and with fire ]" Were they dijyjjed in the Holy Ghost, or plunged into the fire? The mere naming of such an absurdity, is its own refutttion. The significant emblem of " fire" was employed to denote the purifying and quickening influences of the Holy Spirit ; just as the water in baptism is the symbol of our spirit- ual purification : but certainly they were not dipped in the emblem; for it descended and *'««< upon each of them." Now if the disciples received a real valid bap- tism " with fire," although they were not dipped in it, may not a man have received a real valid baptism ivith water, when he has not been dipped in it, but sprinkled toith it ] It is impossible for any amount of ingenuity to make it appear that there was dipping on *he day of Pentecost ; and yet we must admit there was a real baptism *' with fire :" otherwise we shall make out our Lord's forerunner to have been a false prophet ; for if his prediction was not fulfilled on the day of Pentecost, it was not fulfilled at all. It would be quite easy to produce many more passages from the New Testament in proof of our position that baptism and dippinj are not synonymes; but it is unne- cessary, and we cannot afford the space. 14 INFANl- BAPTISM SCRIPTURAL We proceed now to another branch of our argnment, and afhrm that the entire New Testament does not fur- nish a single clear case of baptism by dijyping. The proof of this statement, however, although it will serve to strengthen our argument, is not at all necessary to its conclusiveness. Its omission would not be leaving out the keystone of the arch, but simply leaving the building a few inches lower. We may go even further, and affirm, that If It could be shown, beyond a doubt, that baptism m the times of our Lord and His apostles was invaHably administered by dipping,_thi8 would not at all invalidate that branch of our argument in which we have clearly proved that haptwm and dii>ping are not synonymous, but would merely imply that dipping is a valid mode of ad- mmistenng the ordinance,_a point on which we are all quite agreed. Did John, then, baptize by dipping? It is confidently affirmed that he did, because it is said that he - baptized tn Jordan." Now, were we even to admit that the sub- jects of John's baptism went into the water, (which is far from certain,) how would it follow from this admission that they were dipped? If a man rides his horse into the water, does that imply that he plunges him over head and ears in it? May it not mean merely that he rides him m a few inches deep, for the convenience of letting him drink] The Jordan, as is well known, had a double bank, an inner and an outer. The stream wa.s confined withm the inner bank, except at the time of the annual overfiow, caused by the melting of the snow on Mount Lebanon, when it reached to the outer. The expression 'H/^ Jordan," then, ought not to have any great stress laid upon It; for it may mean no more than that John arran^red f >> *- lit I AND IMMERSION UNNECESSARY. 15 our argument, does not fur- ig. The proof will serve to scessary to its e leaving out g the building er, and affirm, that baptism vas invariahly all invalidate have clearly onymous, but mode of ad- 3I1 we are all IB confidently be " baptized that the sub- (which is far lis admission 8 horse into im over head hat he rides ce of letting lad a double vas confined ■ the annual t^ on Mount s expression t stress laid hn arranged his converts along the edge of the stream, within the bed of the river, for the convenience of 8i)rinkling them with the water ; or, at most, pouring it upon them. There is a sect of Christians in the East who call themselves "the followers of John the Baptist, who was the follower of Christ," and who baptize "m rivers," professedly in imi- tation of his example. But they do not dip. Their prac- tice is to hold the infant near the surface of the water, while they sprinkle him with it. While so much stress is laid by our opponents on the statement, that "John baptized in Jordan," how does it happen that they ignore that other passage in which John describes himself as "baptizing with water?" Baptizing with water is both sense and grammar; but dipping with water would be nonsense. But why did John take up his station at the Jordan, and why did he select " Enon," where there was "much water," if he did not baptize by dipping ? Only reflect on the 'ast multitudes who attended John's ministry, many of whom came from distant places, and that they did not receive baptism and then retire immediately, bxit remained, some of them probably for a considerab?e time, for the purpose of receiving instruction from his ministry, — and you will have a satisfactory answer to this ques- tion. If John had merely preached and not baptized at all, it would have been necessary for him to take up his station in some neighbourhood where water was plentiful. Christians of different denominations in America are ac- customed to hold their camp-meetii gs in the neighbour- hood of some streain or river; but would any one infer from this that they are accustomed to baptize by dipping t' But suppose we admit that John selected "Jordan" and u ISFANT UAI'TISM SClilfTlllAL ; ' J'.uo,;" nminly for tI,o convcntenoe of l.nving wutor to "«,,t,:« „Hl,, it would „„t (iJlov,. tl,at l,e l«,,ti.«l l,y es Johu the B„,,,t,«t, and w«. to b„,,ti.o, by ^nJlL or pounag v«.t u,„Itit,uK «^ 0,e onti,. ,„puhtion of o™ of our large co«„t.es, would he not find it nec««ry to «eoctas,»t where water vv». at,u«d™tj In Peleiino wate,- was very .carce .■ the Jor,l,,n w<« ti,e only stream that des«.vod the n.,me of a river, the rest .L ^Z mountan torrents. Then if John had merely sp..inkled or poured a little water on each of l.i« .,„„ w„„l,l 1. <■ /*' ™ ™«" o* his numerous converts, lie wo .Id have found .t a g,.at convenience to have ,,lent; „ water at hand, e,en if it had !«.„ „,uired for no ot^.er pur,x«a than that of baptism. As to "Enon," and its mud, water o„ which so much stre^, has been laid, it by tn^vellers, tl.at ,t never did furbish such a quantity of water as John would have requi.«l for Uiyj,u^, BibLl crxtrcsare agreed that tl,e phrase rendered in our verln much water," properly mea.,s - ,«.«>j, waters," that is t^ ^y, ma^ springs Now, if John l«pti.ed by pouring a litUe watex- from a ves.,el on the h««l of each convert according to the representation in axicient bas-reliefs, tlj the many springs of Enou would -have furnished him w.th a the water that he needed ; but they would have been altogether inadequate to supply him with the q„«i. tity of water that he would have required to dip so large a unm])er. ^ ^ciigc ,ncreJU,le. How any maa who has reflected on the cir- ouuistanoes of the case can believe that he did, is aston- .»luug. Did Jolm dip hi. convert., in a .tate of „„*Vy, I lit ) JiHvuig wtitir *^o were as i)oj)ular by Kpi inkling or wpulution of one I it necessary to t? In Palestine tlie only stream tCHt wei-e mere lely sprinkled or ^•ous converts, he have plenty o 'ed for no other 'Enon," and its laa been laid, it try, as described 2h a quantity of ^>pmg. Biblical in our version, j tters," that is to J J by pouring a f each convert, bas-reliefs, tlien furnished him ; 'ey would have ' with the quan- to dip so large ping is utterly { ed on the cir- I '■ did, is aston- i iite of nudity^ \ AND IMMERSION UNNECESSARY. 17 or in their ordinary garments? Decency would forbid the former, and a due regard to health and life the latter. Then did they come furnished with bathing-dresses ] Many of them, when they left home, had not the slightest inten- tion of being baptized. They went, doubtless, influenced only by motives of curiosity, in many cases, to hear the popular preacher, and never thought of receiving baptism until they had been awakened by his powerful ministry. Bathing-dresses, then, in such cases, were out of the ques- tion. But suppose (though it is violating all probability) that the people came furnished with the requisite bathing- dresses, where could they undress and dress ? On the banks of the river] men and women together! Who could believe this? especially considering the retiring habits of Eastern women. That John baptized his converts by dipping is, as we have seen, utterly incredible. We now advance another step in the argument, and say that it was 2>hi/sicalli/ im- possible. The precise number baptized by John cannot, of course, be ascertained ; but the language of Scrijiture inti- mates that it was very large. ''Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judiea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were baptized of him." Some have estimated John's converts at two millions. Perhaps this estimate is too high. Mr. Godwin's estimate is three hundred thou- sand ; which is certainly sufficiently low; and yet he shows that the dipping of this number by one man would have taken twelve years. Now, when it is remembered that John baptized pei-sonally, and not "by his disciples," as our Lord did, and that his ministry only lasted a year, at the longest, (some say only six months,) it will be seen that it was physically impossible for him to have dijfj^ed a 18 m iii INFANT BAPTISM SCRIPTURAL ; titho of his converts, even if 1,0 i j i comfortably i„ the .'JZ on hid ™ ""' *" "™ ^ large n„Le. T:',,: ^tTtW T .T "'^^^ *'"' a« Ethio- the water, both Philip and the T' T' '"^ ■""' »'» him. And when thev tel "'^ ' """■ ^' ''"Pt-od Spirit of the Lord cl^ taraTXr'/.r -*-' «"> 3»-) Was this, then, a dear ol! bL' ^ f" "" '«' It iB aiBrmed that it was- but w '^ ^ '''"'^"^^ went "into the water "^,1' ™ '"'™'"'' "' They i;uc water, and came up <*o«// n/'<^>,^ i. ,. the words which are supposed to pLelf M ' "'" of dWii.g. Almost every one kLl « * 1 ' ""' " "^ dored, respectively, " ij Z ''Zlrt t T"' ""■ ^ rendered, in equal harmony with jhf "'«''*,'"'™ ^een j ">««," and that, in fact thev „ ^'^'"' "'"" ""^ lated in our ^^ ..^il:''^;- -^ ;^ ^.. t^ns- j ing, (and we Aa«, a right to t»ke iJ f , ' '^'"'''■- no proof that they welt int„ the I l^t t^ '''" '^ ' merely have gone to the water's ed J B,!t '/ ' "'""'" onthi3renderi.,g.forwefeelthS-in^:::l:-:: I !>)' %. RAL ; >een able to live as » three thousand on t would have beon 3 have dijyped this 'id been phy«ically lat they could have e it was so scarce I to the people in this case without nit several others iment. he immersionists, 'chor (or at least tism of the Ethio- ' down both into and he baptized >f the water, the (Acts viii. 38, ism hydi2)ping? imine it. They ^the water," are > this was a case the words ren- ight have been giiial, ^Ho" and ten thus trans- ke this render- hoose,) there is ill; they might ^e do not insist ontroversy we AND IMMERSION UNNECESSARY. 10 I I f can well ufford to be liberal. Lot tis keop, then, to the authorized version, ''into' and ''out of." How does it ap- pear, from these words, that the eunuch was dipped? They miyht go" into" the water only ankle-deep, to enable Philip the more conveniently to lift up some of it in his hand, and pour it on the head of his convert. Cei-tainly it cannot be said that the word necessarihj means more than this. But if it be insisted upon that the words '* into" and " oid of" must mean immersion and emersion, (though no proof of this is furnished,) then, as nothing is said of the eunuch in relation to them that is not said of Philip, the passage would prove that the eunuch was dipjied three times, and Philip twice! "They went down both info the water," loth dipped; "and he baptized him," — Philip dipped the eunuch: and "they came up," both of them, "out o/ the water," — Philip and the eunuch emerged, which implies of necessity that they hiul been previously submerged. Thus, if Ave concede all that is asked in regard to the meaning of " into" and " out of," we fear that the passage will prove rather inconvenient to our friends, by establishing a good deal more than they wish. It is impossible, as we have seen, to prove that the eunuch was dipped at all, without proving at the same time that he was dipped thrice and Philip twice. Are our opponents, then, prepared to stick to this passage as a proof of baptism by dipping ? If so, they must take the consequences ; which, besides showing their own practice to be defective, would place a solemn re- ligious ordinance in a very ludicrous light. "We cannot but think that correct views respecting the nature of baptism as a symbolical rite (of course it is more than a symbol, but with that we have nothing to do at 20 INFANT nAI-TlSM WWrPTURAL; K'^sont) would M, 'Vlilv ROfflr. ♦!.« hynhowiu^ that /• •'^"'^^''' *•''« ^^^«^'' qnostion of MOD,,. the 8vnilj.ll I r., .1 ■ >wiwi. mgii. Now whore is He in M, for tli„(, as will be seen on rellection would aonieti„,e„ proiluce confusion in our conec„tio.« ,Z , ! ^3.1 bol « ,n tho ,„«fc, .,„a that tlicieforo the only ri.lit "buriiJ- wk n ! .. ," "" """'• " ^>™l»li=^os our bu„,a w ith Uiri.st, .iccoi^ding to a passage in the Eiiistlo Hmi by ba,,ti.„„." But the believer's " burial with Chris » » obviously not a literal truth, but a figumtive mode „ ex pressing his "death unto sin " A,„l i •• "'°™ "• ex- Dr r„l„„ 1 ■ ,^ " '•V'lsni, according to Dr. Caison himself, cannot be the symbol of a fi,n,re it can only be the symbol of a truth. Some few havTmli^ U,„,Kl that sprnikling and .Kiuring are the ^ Zm moaes of baptism; and that immersion is .,ltoi,eth„ . warranuible, on the g,.„nd that it cannot ^I it "e" "pouring out of the Holy Spirit." To this Dr. c" , pl.es, "Pouring of the Spirit is a phrase which is its^l a tgure not a reality to be represented by a figure " Thi^ reply IS correct ; and proves that to set up excCe cla^ns u. favo of ,p,i„kling or pouring, is unwai^nJbl Wo ar^t n , . \ '' T- *'" i"""'"'' '"'' ™* P^^'™ *>■»' '^ ar„,uncn.. v..J,e .,i,„„,g »,,„ ^,„„^.^^^ ^^^.^^ ^^^^^ ^^ iiostion of MODI.:, I to its vulitJity. linitted by all. symbolizes our ho Holy Sfiirit. tuiil griioe" sig- Now whore is of its aj)j>lica- hor ; it cannot flection, woultl ptions, bosiiles s said that the :;he only right what tloes ini- yanbolizes our in the E])Lstlo 3 buriwl with I with Christ" 9 mode of ex- , according to a figure; it f have main- J only valid together un- miboiju-b tj e r. Cs AND IMMERSION UNNECESSAKV. 21 .'I ?•'., 'h is itself a ?ure." This usive claims itable. We iive that his (i would re- Rtrict us to sprinkling or pouring, was equally valid against the narrowness which would restrict us to imniorsion. I£e says that sprinkling or pouring cannot symbolize the pour- ing of the Spint, b<>ause that is only a figurative mode of representing the bestowmont of the Si)iiit's influences. Then may it not bo said, with equal truth, immersion cappot symbolize our burial with Christ, because " that is a phrase which is itself a figure, not a reality to be represented by a figure ?" If the argument is valid against the man who advocates exclusive sprinkling or pouring, on the ground that the mode is symbolical, it must be equally valid against the man who, on the very same ground, advo- cates exclusive immersion. Dr. Carson is so thoroughly satisfied with his argument against the atlvocates of exclu- sive sprinkling or pouring, that ho thinks " it must settle the point for ever with all sober men." Let us look at tho great principle of this argument. Does it not prove, most conclusively, that in baptism the symbol must be in the water, and that it cannot be in the mode of its application ? For in whatever way you use water in baptism, whether you sprinkle, pour, or immerse, you cannot regard the mode as symbolical without making it the symbol of a figure. Immersion symbolizes no tnith, and can symbolize none. Ai il this is oqually true of sprinkling or pouring. How- ever the water may be applied in baptism, the symbol is in it, not in the mode of using it. We cordially thank Dr. Carson for his argument : let it only be carried out to its logical consequences by all parties, and we ask no more. For as soon as it is admitted that watei-, not dipping, nor pouring, nor sprinkling, is tho symbol, the controversy as to mode must be at an end «' with all sober men ;" for it 22 INFANT BAPTIS5I SCRIPTURAL; Will be «een that a small quantity is just as good, as a sym- bol, as a tankful, or a river. » ^ » s jm Here, then, we close our observations on the mode of bapt^su.. We have proved, even on the admission that baptism means dipping, that, if our Christian liberty allows us to eliminate the element of time in rega^-d to the Lord's Supper, on the same principle we are allowed to eliminate the eWnt o mode in regard to baptism, and to adminis- ter It by sprinkling or pouring, rather than by immersion. If on any ground we prefer doing so. We have proved tha haptun, and dipping are not synonymous in the Greek Classics; and that even if they were, we should still have to Hiquire, <^What saith the Scripture?" From the 7Z Testa„.ent we have adduced passages in which the word hapUsm IS applied to cases in which we are quite sure there could not have been immersion. We have shown, too, that there is no evidence from the New Testament of the im- mersion of a single individual, either by John the Baptist or by any of the apostles or evangelists; and this we havj done by an examination of those passages which are sup- posed most strongly to favour the views of our opponents. And lastly, we have proved from the symboUcal nature of the rite, that immersion, which symbolizes nothing, and can symbolize nothing, cannot be essential to its validity. Such IS a brief summary of our argument. We now leave the question of mode, and proceed to in- quire. Who are the proper subjects of baptism V Our warrant for administering baptism to any is founded on the apostolic commission, "Go ye, therefore, .nd teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost : teaching them to I'l > AND IMMERSION UNNECESSARY. 23 good, as a sym- n the mode of admission that 1 liberty allows •d to the Lord's ed to eliminate tnd to adminis- by immersion, ve proved that in the Greek )uld still have 'rom the New hich the word lite sure there own, too, that Qt of the im- Q the Baptist, this we have hich are sup- ir opponents. Lcal nature of hing, and can didity. Such proceed to in- ly is founded e, AND IMMERSIOIT UNVECESSART. 25 ng to their view essential to the d, on all hands, maintained that e something to 3ut our only ob- in whether the commission in ative Jews, and m, stand to the itiatory rite of ;rance into the mode of admis- is rite adminis- denied to their bolical rite : it lat of baptism ; ;h of the flesh," the h<;art from m is symbolical ive been quite lerstanding the )uld have been Vhat good can ) intimate that ilty of such ab- dne command, ews and prose- the reasoning, is, would have f infants, as it is against their baptism. Our point, therefore, is, that the apostles, being Jews, and consequently familiar with the circumcision of infants, would not be likely so to interpret their commission to baptize, as to restrict the rite to adult believers, and deny it to their infant children, on the ground that they were not capable of believing. Must not every unprejudiced person admit that, to say the least, the apostles would be likely to interpret their commission to baptize in the light of the Divine command in regard to cir< Pracision 1 And as they knew that the infants, both of native Jews and proselytes, were admitted into the Jewish church, and received the rite of circumcision by the com- mand of God, would they not be likely to interpret their commission in the wide sense, and conclude that the infant children of Christians were to be admitted into the church by baptism ? If this would have been an error, it was an error into which, under the circumstances, they would have been morally certain to fall ; an error from which nothing could have preserved them but an express injunction from their Master, telling them not to baptize infants. Let any reflecting man say, which view of the commission the apos- tles, with their Jewish training, would be likely to adopt ; whether the wide view, which would include infants,— or the narrow view, which would exclude them ? But if we supijose, in violation of all the laws of probability, that the apostles took the restricted view, and refused to admit into tlie church, by baptism, the infant children of those who embraced Christianity, is it credible that this would have occasioned no demur .'—that all the Jewish converts, though tlieir children had been admitted into the Jewish church by circumcision, would have submitted, without a murmur, to their exclusion from the Christian church, by their being B 26 INFANT BAPTISM SCRIPTURAL I ^•efused its initiatory rite ? Now, in the Acts and the Ji-pKstles we find traces of many controversies in the early cJuux-hcs; but not the sligl^tcst trace of controversy in ' ^gard to tlie baptism of infants. Tliis fact is easily ac- counted for, on the sup])osition that tlie apostles so inter- l-reted their commission as to inchule the infant children of their converts, but is utterly inexplicable on the supposition that tliey were excluded. All that is said in the "Acts" respecting the practice of the apostles and their coadjutors, in regard to baptism, is quite in harmony with the view which we have proved to be the only credible one,— that they took the wide, and not the rastricted, view of their commission. It is quite true tliat we do not read expressly of their baptizing infants: if WG are right in our previous reasoning, they would do this an a matter of course, without making any special record of It, which is the imictice of our modern missionaries. We «lo read, however, of the baptism of entire '' households ;" (an argument in our favour which we shall afterwards dwell on at gi-eater length ;) and it would be an assumption alto- gether incrediljle, that none of tlie numerous heads of fomi- hes, which were converted in ai>ostoIic times, had anv in- fant children. Well, but it is said, that the commission is our only .guide ; that it plainly restricts the rite of baptism to believ- ers; and therefore necessarily excludes infants, who are not capable of believing. Those who take this ground must, of course, take all its logical consequences. Let us see wliat they are. This argument, then, if it has any force at all, will not only exclude infants from baptism, but also from salvation. If the expression in the commission, "he that hclieveth and ■5- AND IMMERSION UNNECESSARY. 27 is baptized," be interpreted to mean, that believing is in all cases an essential pre-requisit- to baptism ; tlien that other expression, which is also in the commission, " he that be- lieveth not shall be damned," if interpreted on the same principle, must mean, " Believing is in all cases an essentini prerequisite to escaping damnation: but infanta do not believe ; therefore they will certainly be damned." Every man ought to be prepared to take the logical consequences of his own principles. Are those persons, then, who deny baptism to infants, because they are not believers, prepared to adopt the horrible conclusion to which this principle logically leads? Observe, we do not charge them with actually holding the opinion tliat infants will be damned; on the contrary, we know that their whole nature instinc- tively revolts from the horrible notion. But we do charge their restricted interpretation of our Lord's commission with leading logically to this conclusion. Let them point out the flaw in the reasoning, if there be ono. But if, on the contrary, the connexion between the premisses and the con- clusion be logically sound, let them, for the sake of consis- tency, as the^ abhor the conclusion, give up the premisses which clearly warrant it. Our opponents, however, hold very firmly to the words in the commission, " He that believeth and is baptized," and maintain that they leave no room for infants, as they sanc- tion only the baptism of believers. Dr. Carson says, "I would gainsay an angel from heaven, who should say that this commission may extend to the baptism of any but be- lievers." But let us try the practice of such men as Dr. Carson by their own avowed principle. Do thoy, then, really and practically hold that no baptism is valid unless the subject is a believer ] A man presents himself for bap- u 2 28 INFANT BAPTISM SCRirrURAL ; But llhl ' r' ^^ " "■"""'^'••O »*o «'« church. wit "°l'«"-''"-" "In mne ca.os out of ten 1" Why this amounts to a wholesale violation of our Lord's o^nnssjon, aa they inte.pret it. But .hen they have fei'::o?fT "V"'^"^"''" ''""^''- '^ -» - ^^ P- vZTi °! Tl ' T ''"'"''" ^'^■■"""^ *'"'* '» --. ''t the behever do they not amend the error by re-baptizing him heZri'^ •'"™' *>■-' h" « now a genuine be- r No, never, m any case. Then what becomes of thojr assertion that pe„„nal faith is essential to the 3 lity of bapfsm, and that infants' baptism is not valid ^^l mf^ts cannot believe J Either the baptism of iie ^^ cnte was vahd or it was not. If not then they JZ »nbapt,sad persons into their churches and retoS them knowon, them to be unbaptized. But if the Z^ZrlZ. raw and their p^cti^ ,ays that in their judgment "wT LI-: ""', T' "' ^'^ '" ''^' *^^ Tincesl:^ abou. 6e;«««., bant.sm, as alone valid, and declaim so con fats » ::: *° ^v^^'™'^- '^'"' *"« baptism ;:. fante, on the ground that they are not believers J Is not the pract.ce m flat opposition to the creed J Surely an "n nocent mfant, who has never been guilty of actual sin ZZi be a be ter subject for baptism than a vile hypocrite" Td .s .t not an absurdity to say, that the baptism'of the former was ,nv.hd, on acocmt of the unlltnLs of the su^o AND IMMERSION UNNECESSARY. 29 >rofession the the church, professions ? auine believ- fcer, confesses )f judgment, ut of ten!" i" our Lord's they have, on his pro- was, at the id of a true itizing him, Bdness, and genuine be- becomes of ihe validity lid because the hypo- hey admit bain them, ptism was 3nt it was, ncessantly im so con- sm of in- ? Is not ely an in- sin, must te ! And tie former subject ; while in the latter case it was perfectly valid, although the subject was a thousand times more unfit 1 Our opponents often make a great mistake, in supposing that the adult baptisms mentioned in the Now Testament entirely favour tlieir own views. They not unfrequently point to these, and then ask, in triumph, where we can find a single clear case of infant baptism in apostolic times'? Now it would be quite easy to rebut this challenge, Vjy de- fying the objectors to produce a single case of adult bap- tism, favouring their own peculiar view, from the entire record of apostolic practice. We say, " favouring their own peculiar view." For what is that view, as stated by their own writers, and confirmed by the uniform pi-actice of their churches ? Is it not that the childi-en of church-members should remain unbaptized imtil they grow up, and make a profession of faith in Christ 1 Then it is quite irrelevant to point to the adult baptisms mentioned in the New Testa- ment ; for they afibrd not the slightest sanction to this view. Without a solitary exception, they are the baptisms of peraons who were trained up either in Judaism or hea- thenism, and who became converts to Christianity under the preaching of the Gospel. But this simply supports the view which, as we have already stated, is held by ourselves in common with our opponents, and is, therefore, quite ir- relevant to the matter in dispute. They contend that it is wrong for Christian parents to present their infant children for baptism ; and that in all cases they should remain un- baptized until they have grown up, and make an intelligent profession of faith in Christ. Now where have we, in any of the apostolic writings, any intimation of the baptism of an a^ult whose parents were Christians at the time of his birth ? Not one such case can be found in the entire New -■ -J 30 INFANT BAPTISM SCniPTUIlAL; of Christian ;itrw:7 r ""■?''" "'*■"'''■'' -"^ the View, of „„ opp^^e":! "iT th^T " "r""™' *""' '' »f the baptism of ly of tW vm *' '"'™ "" '^""^ fro. th! no/t^:^: t. T:rA t '"'™' '^^«^" lenge in a ww fh.t • ,-? ""' *° "'^«* 'lie chal- gari the MU't;::!^'"'y'» "- opponent, he re- the «ame principle of re Jonin"^ tt '"* ™ ""'''y -ieet^rrnnr;.r.';2i:-r^:ir^^^^^^ •>«Ptism • atlir/7 '^!'"' *^*™""'* "Of™ of -"lult til are'ol'eTnl," " " ^"^ '''""^'' "^P^^ossing Chria- «oI: il' trw xL^ *" ? 'l^"''^'*'" -^P*-^ -en. jailor believed iXl h^T .* '*""^'*- ^''^-^ "'<> hoM of s4h!nar""'(irxvina'';;'"'*'Tf ^"^ ^°"- Now it is „,ute easv tl J ' ^^ ^ '»'' ' Cor. i. 16.) - an, ofCoZL'^CtMr-'^'.r "°'"^»*» point We care not if!!' '^ "■"""^ ^"o "f the can be, that ZnZ':^ Z'^.'^r' ^^^^ '*"^™' of adults only. Everv „„? ^ ^ ^'' ''"''' """"Posed y- hvery one must admit, on refleotion,\hat ANJ) IMMERSION UNNECESSARY. 81 contain a d of more tcVb ascen- Iren, born y long be- ti, then, if no record are* often baptism the chal- t, he re- t infant as apply h main- >uld not ■s. Tlie a single lis own f adult ; Chris- 8 men- Lydia *n the i^iglit- house- i. 16.) ifants f the never posed that the few instances of household bai>tisms mentioned in the New Testament were not all that occun-etl during the ajKxs- tolic age. To suppose that they were wo\ild be ridiculous, considering the wide and rapid spread of Christianity in apostolic times. Clearly, the few given are only to be re- garded as spBcimens of the thousands that are not given. Then will any one venture the supposition, that in all these thousands of households there were no iv/antst If so, we should scarcely think it worth while to argue with him. Well, then, every candid man must admit that, in many of the "househoMs" who received baptism, there were in/anta^ without doubt. But it may be said, *' If there were infants, they were not baptized." This, however, would be an as- sumption, setting at defiance all the laws of evidence. In what sense would a Jew — familiar with the practice (wliich was uniform) of circumcising the entire household, includ- ing the youngest child, if but eight days old, when the head of the family became a proselyte — understand the "Aow«e- Jiold" baptisms mentioned in the New Testament] Can any. one doubt, that he would understand the term to in- clude every member of the family ] It was impossible that he could put any other construction upon the term. In the Old Tef^tament Scriptures, it is uniformly used in the widest sense. For example, God said unto Noah, " Come thou and all thy /toiwfe into the ark," — meaning his entii-e family. "I rent the kingdom away from the house of David." "I will bring evil upon the hoiise of Jeroboam." " The Lord shall raise up a king who shall cut off the house of Jeix>boam." The meaning of the term in all these parages (and they are given merely as samples of hundreds more) is plain, — the " house" or " household" was the entire family. Obviously, then, the word mist be underetood in this wide sense, (for 32 INFANT BAPTISM SCRIPTUnAL ; -1.0 *e.. bailed "nllJT "'"""'"'^ "' ""»"'- poetised by the .voItCZ^fl'"'' '*''"''" ""» either th«t thcr^ were „„ in J ' '""'* """""'. "Wl.o.d." or thrre/t e ereeZr'T^'*'--' make this assumntioi, «„f „ > ;'"*P'«'. (««(I he must to m»ti>Lati„ar<>eto„"^i:'°; f """"""' ^"^ ^-'^ have a right on L , f "" "" ™"<' '='»"^'>. ^^Y eleventh chapter of his EpisUet; IC P ^"'"™' " "'« argument, the visible chnrcJ T. ""'■ ^^ ""» and believers, whet er J :' or 0^^' ". ™ '"'™-'- ' ^Heving Jews are «Me„ /L'!::: ^J!, \^""'-- ^'e *en. m the fee by heredita,y descent tie bT""' *'"' fles as " wild olive " branched „raZ irt^th °""' *'''"■ and partaking of the " -^t W«' "nto the same stock, -'.ile, on the^ol Lnd tlr T^- "^ "'^ °"™-'-^" -ted as branches "tL'';"!!*:::^'^ ^"^ '^"^ their unbelief. The Gent; l„ ""^"'en off on account of "g-fted i„..byfaitl td 1 ,r r"'"^" ""■" ""^y -ere -«. the olivelee" rti^gt^r:. tl "'"■^."- fore, solemnly warnp.? o • x "^"^ve; and are, tiiere- "l-ady -brok'^^nrslfof': ' f °'' -'""'■' - " l-ad certainly b..ak then, oT 1 ^''''''T ''™^'"'^'" -'"O " '•' P'™' tl'en, fi'om the enli,^ I AND IMMERSION UNNECESSARY. 33 moaning,) )lil8." It children families ave been ism was assume ba|)ti2ed •e must oj^posi- ^ nearly tliat the profes- h, they jy mtx f in the n this 5-tree ; Tlie 1, who : Gen- stock, ;ree ;" repre- mt of M'ere 3xion iiere- had ould ntiro argument, that when the Jew l)ecanie a believer, and tints passed into the Christian church, he was not " broken ofF;" that he did not unchurch himself by becoming a Christian. What, then, became of his children ? Tlioy, aa well as hini- self, were native branches in the olive-tree j members of the visible church by hereditary descent; and had therefoie re- ceived the initiatory rite of circumcision. Were they, then, " broken oif" when their jjarent became a Christian 1 None of the Jews were " broken off," except for unbelief; that is, for the rejection of Christ. Now, if the Jewish children, who were certainly native branches in the olive-tree, were "broken off," it could only be either on account of tlieir own unbelief, or the unbelief of their parents. If a Jewish parent rejected Christ, both he and his infant children were thereby unchurched,— « broken off" from the olive-tree. But when the parent was a believer, his children could not, of course, be " broken off" for his unbelief Nor could they be broken off for their own ; for they were incapable of wil- fully rejecting Christ, which was the sin of the unbelieving Jews. Then, clearly, as -both the Jews and their children were native branches in the olive-tree,— and, as in the case of those who believed, there was nothing to break off either, — when the parent became a member of the Christian church, he canied his children along with him. Besides, would it not be utterly incredible to sv.ppose that, while the parent retained his connexion with the Jewish church, he should have his children along with him, as the recognised memljers of that church; but that, when he became a Christian, he should be required to enter the church alone, and to leave his children outside of the pale ? And when the Gentiles — the "wild olive" branches — became grafted into the ** olivo-trcc," and partook of its 34 INFANT BAPTISM SCIlIPTrHAL ; gonoml tonor of the New rl . "'"""^ *" *'"' «tat«. that the GeutU.,fZ„:t"r '/''"'' """"^"''^ with the Jew^ TU„„ itZZ<^. """'' ''""''««» who believed, an,, who wUh .T' "^ .T "'" '"*'™ ■'^'^• »imp.y ,.a..e« over tL r'alL" t, " f "'''" ""' tiH tl.e "wild olive" ."/'"""'"»" <='"'«h ; so the Gon- gr.^ted into t oWt.:":fr, "•'""' '"^^ •*""'«'' -"> the Jews, carried tC i.Zt tr"'' """," ''""''«'" ^•'«' Then, if St Paul's " ^^^ ''""« '^'"'8 with them, proves, most conelnsivT r T ""^ ""^"''"^ ■" ""■ *' who have en.br«=ed C hrilt l^ *'! ""?' '='"'''™» "^ »"„«, visible church of Chriar '^S f, ? *™ " ^''"^ ■" ">« right to baptism ^ ""' "'''*'^""' *'"" *hey have a Now, if infants liave a riahf f^ u x- just stated, how much stro"! will tT " ,*''.^ """'"^ ordinance if we can prove alTthrt t, . "' "" *" *■■" terest in " the redomnZ ... ^^ '"™ * '«'■«'"''' *"" therefore, if thiy dt irti* * T ^''""* •'''^""•" ^O «-- And thi;admi 'of vlllT^r^ '■''"" """'P--' ««e Children" to CuLTZl..,Tm: 7'^"''' Wishing to keep them awav ««^ v^ "^'""'^'^^ ^^'^ cation of the eo„d„ro7Lr wTo C:!:!' '" ^•'''"''- «.oh is the kingdom of heaven." ThTthe"'"'-"^^ "kingdom of heaven," is to be underlod •„ "'''^""'' ^nse, there can be „„ doubt. Crre it T"'"'' either the kingdom of g,^e on earth , """'* '"'^" whom Christ cUim. ^^ Z I ' T''"^'"'"'''''^ ^'O* as Hu. subjects and servants, in op,». AND IMMEnsION INXECESSAUV. 39 nition to tliose who l)elong to tlio kingdom of »Satan ; or else His future kingdom of heavenly glory. It niattt'rH not to our argument in which sense the pasHago in taken. Indeed, we may fairly take it in both ; for the one necessarily in- volves the other. The passage, tlien, clesirly asserts that all "little children," not having reached years of accountability, have an interest in Christ, and may be conipreliended in His church on earth; and, consequently, that, dying before the commission of actual sin, they will be admitted into the kingdom of heavenly glory. Or, if we understand the pas- sage as referring, primarily, to their gracious right, tinough the Saviour's mediation, to future happiness, that would necessjvrily infer their jyresent interest in Ilim. Wo have said all " little children," because there is not the slightest reason for believing that there was anything sperial in the children brought to Christ to distinguish them from other "little children." On the contrary, the expression, "of mch" clearly intimates that our Lord pointed to them as a sample of the rest. Then, "can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized," whom Christ designs to be members of His church, and heirs of heavenly happiness ? We shall now give a brief summary of our argument on this branch of the subject. Our authority to bajjtize any, infants or adults, is derived from the apostolic commission. In regard to the subjects of baptism, that commission must either be interpreted in a wide sense, which would include infants ; or in a narrow sense, which would exclude them. It is utterly incredible that the apostles, with their Jewish tmining, could have interpreted their commission in the narrow sense. Since the infants both of native Jews and proselytes were admitted into the Jewish church by the rite 36 INFANT BAPTISM SCRIPTURAL ; of circumcision : if riiMcf i j the infant children „£! '"'^' *"""" "'" *» ''"I't™ Him. Tl,eaDoZl •• ™ -^"tably mimmctotood cat. tha; thC'l,~' - "-"-^^ in t»e Act, indi- »ol in its m.„W, ™ ""= "'""""^'™ « it. a-.'*, and "ap'tTears ^tr ' ^^"'"'^ '"'»'^ ^-■" out to its logical Zr '™'^' '"'"''^' if «"-™d heaven. On?:;^^^:^::! I^ ^ .'^ '"^° '-' only valid bantam • b„t ,l! ^' ^"J"'™' '«' the *iti. their c,.e^i;fel P™«- '^ ""t in harmonv -n, Whose hJtiaiX nerrtS'*'""-^.'"'^-*^ *-» ■« Perfectly valid. It islL f^, ' P"^""''"^ "•'S*'-'' infants as invalid ill! !/l T""" *^ ""P**^- "' while other baptisms, wCftt Tnf T ""^ "'" '"*>''' tin.es more „nfi\ a«' dnX* ^nttliTr f • "^'"'' ~tiX«ro;r'r--'-"^^^^^^^^^^ ^e^. ohH3tr:i^r^,:t:h''^- - - and their d^^jlt CT'/r':^ "^ *'"' ''PO'tles ni-d by Christmas thtse t^ "" X f """ ,"" ''^«- " kingdom" upon earth Si 7^ ^ ™ " P'*"" '» His tian baptism Zn thf „ ? ""' *'"=''^ "«'" '<> Chris- We L,u P°" *""' «'''"■"' """t be admitted. Wed^f 4lt: " ^.l^r-'-O that .e have ex- the contrary, SZvLf V. T ""* ''''" "" "i™- On eompatib/^iro' It. :'',i^;;*r "-^"'^ -^-'^''^ «a.Wyer a,.d to e^U^.X^TZ^ " ^-"^^^ '^^ «.ai: r: sir: rr ™""- - '--. -ith a ^ re. Pomt „f some consequence, bnt wluch did not AND IMMERSION UNNECESSARY. 37 (( come within the range of our argument. It is often said, " r% baptize an infimtt What good can it possibly do' him?" Now, even if we were unable to conceive of any benefit which the infant could derive from the rite, we should, nevertheless, feel it our duty to administer it, because we are satisfied that we have the Divine warrant for doing so. But what right has any one to assume that an in- fant can get no good from baptism? The doctrine of " bap- tismal regeneration " we reject, of course, aa a dangerous error. But almost every error is the perversion of some truth ; baptismal regeneration is, we believe, the perversion of an important truth. It is natural for us to think that the farther we can get away from any error the better ; that Hs extreme opposite must be the truth. But this is a mis- take. The extreme opposite to « baptismal regeneration " is the lax notion that baptism is a mere matter of form "giving a name to the child," aa is not unfrequently said! But this is not truth, any more than its opposite, " baptismal regeneration." We say nothing now respecting the benefit which j>arent8 might derive, and which, indeed, they ox,^U to derive, from the dedication of their children to the Triune God in a solemn religious ordinance. We have now to do with the question, "What good can the infant himself get from baptism ?" When our Lord was upon earth "they brought young children to Him;" -infants^^ St. Luke calls them : and though the disciples " rebuked those that brou-ht them," doubtless thinking that the childi-en were too young to get any good; yet "He took them up in His arms, put His hands upon them, and blessed them." Now what was the "blessing" which the Saviour gave to these "infants?" Was It a mere matter of form ? just empty words ' ^^n^o can believe that ? But if not, it must have been a real, sub 38 INFANT BAPTISM SCRIPTURAL J cated to these infants some epiritual good. But if "infants" IXr ^ "'. -^"^^^ ^""^"'^ ^0 '*«. *ey « s L oapabk of recemng .t «.. And surely we may justly ex- ZuTlui -"'r °' * '"'™*"" congregation, the Lorf olSd el ^7™"^'^— --•« » blessing to „„r infant cJiiidren. Of the preo.se extent of the bussing which we a.^e warranted to expect, we W nothing, and'thei^forZ rr hat "'^- V'"* "'^"*" *^^ '"^''^ °f «P'"'-' good we have seen; and surely we are authorised to expect its Uod in the nto of holy baptism. APPENDIX ON RE-BAPTIZING. It not unfrequently happens that conscientious person, who were baptized in infancy, and who have not examS this con roversy, are brought into a steto of doubt and per- plexity by the incessant talk of some ovei^zealous neighbor • and m his state of mind are urged at once to be re-bfptiTIl' by dipping, m order to put an end to their perplexity. But this advice IS certainly most unsound. We would urge th. man who is in doubt to read and tliink until he is tho' ught y pomaded in his own mind; and W^ he is thus pt suaded, and not ie/ore, let him act according to his conviC vahd baptism, and we think we have proved that * i. 1„ .t becomes a serious mutter to repeat it. Our authority to f AND IMMERSION UNNECESSARY. 39 baptize at all rests entirely on the command of the Great Teacher ; but we have no authority from Him to repeat the rite. Nay, the very nature and design of the ordinance sliow that it cannot be legitimately repeated. It is, as we have seen, the initiatory rite of the Christian covenant, the door of entrance into the Christian church ; and therefore, to ask a man who has already been baptized to be dipped, involves the absurdity of asking him to walk into a room in which he is already comfortably seated. But the absurdity is not all, nor even the ivmst part of the case. To re-baptiz<; is to act without the authority of the Master. Nay, more, it is to act against His authority ; for, plainly. He never meant that the rite should be repeated. If a man, after having given his very best attention to the matter, firmly be- lieves that it is essential to the validity of baptism that its subjects should be adult believers, and that it should be aduunistered by dipping,— and therefore is re-baptized; althougn the act is, in our judgment, wrong, we find an apology for his cond\ict in his mistaken views of the rite But no such apology can be made for the man who simply doubts, and whose views on the question are unsettled. To advise him, in this state of mind, to be re-baptized, is to ad ^'ise him to an act of the lawfulness of which he is not yet convinced. We are not averse to inquiry ; on the contraiy, we strongly urge it, and say the more thorough it is, the better : but we do protest, most earnestly, against the prac- tice, which is but too common, of getting conscientious persons who are in doubt and perplexity, to submit to be re- baptized in order to put an end to their perplexity. Noth- ing can be more irrational ; the doubter is to inquire, and resolutely to refuse to act until he is qiiite convinced. Can it be right, then,— is it quite fair and honourable,— i 40 INPAXT BAPTISM SCniPTURAL. for ministers to advertiV +T,o* « +1, , tize believers 0/ ZT ^^ ^'' always glad to bap- uenevers 0/ any denomirmtimi r * Let if ].« , that the only point of difference wo., in retld to th'T and that we LpIH f].n « • • , regard to the worig .- y m 1 .,h iijce a design to entrap them ? And ih.rr 1 1 be warranted in so savins w 1 ^^ *hey would concerrod will say thaT7- ^" ^'^ *^"* *^^^ P^^^^« u will say that their ob eot in offprlnfr f« u a- the members of other churches L not T 7 ^^ ''' forsake their owti f.i 7 7 '""^"^^ ^^^^^^ *» ^^ tuui own folds and enter theirs- h^^^ ^-. i x and oou-iderate, no doubt. But let „» Wk at fll k " Uon let the conscientious members of other churches be u.uet the^ ^dare^^'^fu:;; ;:^ irjr ^^^ *«6<, lest they should offend the Lord T 1, '"^' " :^rc;r:::d^-"-"-^^^^^^^ .,.«. ^ """■'' ^™ '''^ o»>y authorized to receive ad to bap- suppoBed bhe mode; d pouring Iter; and idiness to ould they conduct ? • unsettle it looked By would 3 parties > baptize tliero to lerely to isatisfied ! is kind How pped by urches ? of the 10 issue / y dies be in the iquirc : yond a Xiating IS well 'eceive ">#l m « —