IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

1.0

I.I

1.25

^ 1^ 12.2

I* 4^

•UUu

L4 III 1.6

""?;.

-A

Hiotographic

Sciences
Cornoration

33 WEST MAiN STREE.

WEBSTER, N.Y. MS»0

(716) 872-4503

CIHM/ICMH

Microfiche

Series.

CIHIVl/iCIVlH
Collection de
microfiches.

Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiquet»

T«chnical and Bibliographic Notas/Nota* tachniquaa at bibiiographiquaa

Tha inatituta haa attamptad to obtain tha baat
original copy availabia for filming. Faaturaa of thia
copy which may ba bibliographically uniqua,
which may altar any of *ha irnagaa in the
raproduction, or which may aignificantly changa
tha uaual mathod of filming, ara chacliad balow.

D
D

Coloured covara/
Couvartura da coulaur

r~~| Covara damaged/

Couvarture endommagAa

Covara raatored and/or laminatc'd/
Couvartura raatauria et/ou pellicula

Cover title miaaing/

La titra da couvarture manque

Coloured mapa/

Cartea gAographiquea en couleur

Coloured inic (i.e. othe." than blue or black)/
Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bieue ou noire)

I I Coloured piatea and/or iiiuatraticne/

Planchea et/ou illuttrationj 9^ couleur

Boimd with other material/
RallA avac d'autrea documanta

Tight binding may cauae ahadows or diatortion
along interior margin/

La reliure aerr^e peut cauaar de Tombre ou de la
diatortion la long tie la marge intArieure

Blanic leavea added during reatoration may
appear v><ithin tCi« text. Whenever poaaibia. theae
have been omitted from filming/
II ae peut que certainea pagea bianchar ajoutAea
lore d'una reatauration apparaiaaent dana la textr,
mala, loraque cela Atait poaaibio, caa pagea n'ont
pea At A fiimAaa.

Additional commenta:/
Commentairea aupplAmentairea.-

L'Inatitut a microfilm* ie meilleur exemplaSra
qu'il lui a iit6 poaaible de ae procurer. Lea dAtaila
da cet exemplaire qui aont paut-Atre uniquea du
point da vue bibliographiqua, qui peuvent modifier
une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une
modification dana la mAthode normale de filmage
aont indiquAa ci-deaaoua.

I I Coloured pagea/

Pagea de couleur

Pagea damaged/
Pagea endommagtea

□ Pagea raatored ar;d/or laminated/
Pagea reataurtea at/ou palHculAea

rriiC Pagea diacoloured, atainad or foxed/
uLl Pagea dAcoiortea. tachettea ou pi^utea

I I Pagea detached/

Pagea ditachtea

Showthroughy
Tranaparence

Quality of prir

Quaiiti inAgala de i'impreaaion

Includea aupplementary matarii
Comprend du matAtiel auppiimentaira

Only edition available/
Seula Edition diaponible

rj^ Showthrough/

I I Quality of print variea/

r~l Includea aupplementary material/

I I Only edition available/

Pagea wholly or partially obacured by errata
aiipa, tiaauaa, etc., have been refilmed to
enaure the best poaa'bla imege/
Lea pagea totalement ou partialiement
obacurciaa par un feuiilet d'errata, una pelure,
etc., ont AtA film^ea A nouveau de fa^on A
obtenir la meilleure image poaaible.

1 his item is filmed et the reduction ratio checked below/

Ce document est film* au taux de k-Muction indiqu* ci-deaaoua.

10X 14X 18X 22X

I I I I i I I I I I i I I I

26X

30X

12X

16X

20X

24X

28X

32X

The copy filmed here has been reproduced thank*
to the generosity of:

izoak Walton Killam IMemorial Library
Dalhoutio University

The images appearing here are the best quality
possible considering 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 illustrated impres-
sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All
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 "COM-
TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"},
whichever applies.

L'exetnplaire film* fut reproduit grflce A la
g6nArosit6 de:

Izaak Walton Killam Memorial Library
Dalhousie University

Les imk^ges suivantes ont Atd reproduites avec ie
plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et
de la nettetA de I'exemplaire film*, et en
conformity avec les conditions du contrat de
filmage.

Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en
papier est imprimte sent filmte en commen^ant
par ie premier plat et en terminant soit par la
dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'iliustration, soit par ie second
plat, salon ie cas. Tous les autres exemplaires
originaux sent f ihnte en commengant par la
premiere page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'iliustration et en terminant par
la derniAre page qui comporte une telle
empreinte.

Un des symboles suivants apparaftra sur la
derniAre image de chaque mi'^rofiche, selon Ie
cas: Ie symbole — ► signifie "A SUIVRE", Ie
symbols 7 signifie "FIN".

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 fallowing diegrams illustrate the
method:

Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc. , peuvent Atre
filmfo d des taux de reduction diff^rents.
Lorsque Ie document est trop grand pour Atre
reproduit en un seul clichA, 11 est fitmA d partir
de I'angle supArieur gauche, de gauche h droite,
et de haut en bas, en prenant Ie nombre
d'images nAcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants
iliustrent la mAthode.

■

OUR CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

.f0s.f

(

.:i

OUR CHILDREN FOR CHRIST:

A PLEA FOR

Infant Cl^l^nrrl^-ll^mbtrsl^Tjj ;

WITH SOME BRIEF NOTES ON THE MODE OF

BAPTISM.

SAMUEL MacNAUGHTON, M.A.

Author of " The Duty of the Christian Church in Relation to tht
Temperance Reform " (A Prize Essay).

" Dedicate your child to God at the opening of ita
way,"— Pro V. xxii. 6.

" Take heed that ye despise not one of these little
ones." — Mait. xviii. 10.

EDINBURGH:
LYON & GEMMELL, GEORGE IV. BRIDGE.

1875.

^^9 3 — ^^' ^V^^

PREFACE.

The following pages were written, not for
the purpose of leading away members of the
Baptist communion, but to strengthen and
confirm the minds of young Christians, who
are very frequently called to pass through a
severe ordeal on the subject of Baptism.

The greater portion of Part I. was pub-
lished in Halifax, N.S., two years since,
being an address delivered first before the
Presbyterian Congregation of Fall Eiver, on
the occasion of the late revival, at the earnest
request of many young converts.

Part II., on the Mode of Baptism, was
prepared for the press at the request of a
number of young Christians in New Glasgow,
P. E. Island, after an evening's conversation
with them on the texts discussed in the
Second Part. These notes, together with
some additional matter now incorporated in
this work, are given to the public in the
fond hope that, as they have already been

^w A

<j. ^ , /v.

PllICFACE.

i^sed by the Gre&.t Head of the Church in
dispelling the doubts of several young con-
verts in Edinburgh, they may be instru-
mental in establishing the minds of others,
who eagerly desire to know the mind of the
Spirit on this important subject.

We hereby express our sincere charity for
our Baptist brethren as co-workers for the
Master, and ask those who may read and
appreciate this humble and unpretending
tractate, not to divert it from the intention
of the author, by using it for the purpose of
proselytising members of the Baptist com-
munion ; but simply to remove difficulties that
too often harass the minds of those who are
already members of Pedo- Baptist Churches.
Vie have persistently refused to discuss the
matter privately with members of the Baptist
Church, believing that they can be useful in
their present connection. We count it our
chief joy to be made instrumental in convert-
ing souls to Christ ; but we hope never to gain
the unenviable reputation of being used in

converting to a sect.

Edinburgh, April 1875.

S. M. N.

CONTENTS.

PART I.

Infant Church Membership.

I. Children in the Old Testament Church,
II. Children in the Apostolic Church,

III. Benefits of Church Membership,

IV. Believers' Baptism,
V. Children in the PostApostolic Church

Testimony of Clement,

Hermaa,

Justin Martyr,

Irensous,

Origen,

Celestius,

Apostolic Constitutions

Council of Carthage,

Ambrose,

Chrsysostom,

Augustine, .

Hierom,

Paulinas, Bishop of Nola,
Modern Practice of Greek Churches, .

22
33
35
39
40
40
41
42
42
43
44
44
45;
45
46
46
47
48

via

CONTENTS.

PART II.

TuE Mode of Baptism.

I. BttTTTifw, ......

1. The Meaning of the Word, .

2. Baptist Definitions disagree,

3. Testimony of Lexicons and Divines,

4. The Septuagint, ....
II. Discussion of Texts, ....

6. Baptism with Water, .

6. Baptism with Holy Ghost, .

7. Baptized with Fire,

8. Baptism of Jesus,

9. Consecration to His Priest's Office,

10. Baptism of the Eunuch,

11. "Into the Wat jr,"

1 2. Baptism in the Red Sea,

13. Baptism of the Jailer — of Paul, ,

14. "Much Water," ....

15. Ceremonial Washing,^, .

16. " Baptized for the Dead," .

17. Buried in Baptism,

18. Baptism of Believers, . . ,

PAOB

50
51
52
57
68
67
69
71
72
78
78
76
76
80
82
83
88
89
90
94

PAOR
60

52
57
63
67
69
71
72
73
73
76
76
80
82
83
88
89
90
94

CUE CHILDEEN FOR CHRIST.

I PART I.

I INFANT CHURCH MEMBERSHIP.

1 CHILDEEN IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
I CHUECH.

;; "Suffer the little children, and forbid them not, to come

unto me ; for of such is the kingdom of heaven."

.. Matt. xix. 14.

From the first institution of a Church on
earth, and in all vGrod's covenants with His
professing people, children have been in-
cluded in the promise to the Church.

That they were included in the first cove-
nant, made with Adam in Paradise, is ad-
mitted by all ; and the sad consequences of

OUli CEILDSEN FOR CHEIST.

the violauou of that covenant, not only to
our first parents, fcut to all their posterity,
afford a standing and mournful testimony
that it embraced all, for '' in Adam all die."

The covenant made with Noah was in
these words, '' Behold I establish my cove-
nant with you and wit/i your seed " (Gen.
ix. 9).

The Abrahamic covenant was equally com-
prehensive (Gen. xvii. 7-14), '' A God to
thee and to tbj seed.'*''

This covenant was also confirmed with Isaac
and his seed (Gen. xvii. 19-22). '' Abraham
circumcised his son Isaac, being eight days
old " (Gen. xxi. 4). Now circumcision was
not a Mosaic ceremonial ; but, like the Sab-
bath, it was instituted centuries before Moses.
(See John vii. 22.)

The covenant at Sinai (Exod. xxiv, 7, 8)
was renewed in Horeb, expressly naming the
little ones (Deut. xxix. 10-12) — " Ye stand
this day all of you before the Lord your God,
cap tain. w, elders, officers, your littL ones, your
wives, &c., that thou shouldst enter into cove-
nant with the Lord thy God." (Also, Deut.
XXX. 2, 19.) This passage is very important;

OUn CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

for here we have parents entering into cove-
nant for themseb^es andybr their ** little ones^''*
and pro'^ising obedience for them. Moreover,
the parents were held responsible for their
obedience: "Thou shalt obey His voice accord-
ing to all I command thee, thou and thy chil-
dren, with all thine heF?t and soul " (Deut.
XXX. 2). Her3 we have the clearest possible
promulgation of the principle, that the parent
represents the child until it is competent to act
for itself. This representative position of the
parent, therefore, is not of human device, but
the express command of God,

The very constitution of our natuie de-
mands that the near an ' intimate relation-
ship existing between parent and child should
never be severed. The child's life begins in
the parent, and is essentially one with the
life of the parent. The life of the one is
continued, in the life of the other ; and the
interests of both are precisely the same.
Our better nature, our finer feelings, revolt
against separation under any circumstances.
Now this constitution is given us by God.
We have therefore a double witness. (1.)
God's express command in His inspired

OUR CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

Word ; (2.) His voice speaking through the
nature and constitution which He has given
us, that parents and their little ones must
never be separated in covenanting with God.

This covenanting relationship was pre-
served in the Church of God. In the reign
of Jehoshaphat we find *^ that all Judah stood
before the Lord with their little ones^ their
wives, and their children" (2 Chron. xx. 13).
Now, this was durirjg an invasion of the
country, and they all came '^ to ask help of
the Lord, and to seek the Lord " (ver. 4).
The objector would very naturally say,
^ What good could the little ones do ? they
could not ask help — they could not seek the
Lord ? ' Nevertheless they were there^ and that
by the command of God,

Follow the stream of history still further,
and we find them expressly called to attend in
the assembly of God's people — in the Church
of God assembled for prayer (Joel ii. 15-17) :
*^ Gather the people, sanctify the congregation,
assemble the elders, gather the children, and
those that suck the breasts, let the priests, the
ministers of the Lord, weep and say. Spare
Thy people, Lord," <fec We learn also from

kJ'' M

OUU CHILDREN FOfi CilUIST.

2 Chron. xxxi. 16-18 that children three years
old were admitted into the house of God, took
part in the worship, received their daily por-
tion^ and had their names recorded. Now,
whatever the objector may allege against the
practical benefits resulting from this custom,
as regards the children, still the all-wise God
commanded it to he done^ and His people
promptly obeyed.

The richest possible spiritual blessings,
direct from God, are promised to children :
" The Lord thy God will circumcise thine
heart, and the heart of thy seed^ to love the
Lord thy God with all thine heart." Again,
'^ They are the seed of the blessed of the
Lord, and their offspring with them^^ (Isa. Ixv.
23). " I will pour out my Spirit upon thy
seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring "
(Isa. xliv. 3). '' Children are the heritage of
the Lord " (Ps. cxxvii. 3).

From Deut. xxxi. 12, 13, we learn that
children, incapable of knowing anything^ were
commanded by God to be assembled at the
reading of the law, that they might ** hear
and learn and fear the Lord.'' And Joshua
obeyed ; for we read (Josh. viii. 35), *' There

OUR CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

was not a word that Moses commanded which
Joshr.a read not before all the congregation of
Israel, with the women, and the little ones,
and the strangers." But why were the little
ones brought? Can we discover any good
reason for their presence? Or must our God
and Israel's God be charged with command-
ing a meaningless rite or observance, as we
are in bringing our children into the Church?
There is a very good reason for so doiug,
patent to every intelligent observer, viz., that
in after life they might be without excuse
before God, that they might never be able to
say that they had not covenanted with God,
and had not heard His commandments. The
very fact that their parents promised in their
behalf, and that they were within hearing of
the law, and were ^' diligently taught by
their parents in the house and by the way,"
according to the command of God (Deut. vi.
7), made them, in the estimation of God, to
be without excuse. Do we, therefore, in ask-
ing Christian parents publicly to dedicate
their children and their little ones to God, go
beyond the command of God to His people ?
Assuredly not. Let no one, therefore, think

OUR CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

lightly of this solemn ordinance, so entirely
in keeping with the express command of God
to His ancient Church, and also with the
nature and constitution which He has been
graciously pleased to give us. Wherefore, if
there be any impropriety attached to infant
Church membership, as the opponents of this
ordinance allege, this argument and scripture
testimony conclusively prove that the charge
oi meaningless rites being observed with reference
to unconscious infants is made, not againstman,
but against God; for God commanded it, and
His people obeyed in every particular, even
when the child could not comprehend the
situation, nor enter intelligently into cove-
nant with God.

Nevertheless, as we will now show, God
held them responsible. If a man refused to
have his child circumcised it was infidelity
against God, and the child was excommuni-
cated, '' cut off from his people " (Gen. xvii. '
14) : '' The uncircumcised man-child, whose
flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that
soul shall be cut off from his people ; he hath
broken my covenant." But how did the
child break the covenant and become per-

OUR CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

Bonally guilty of disobedience ? Solely on
the principle which we have laid down ; viz.,
God in this case holds the child personally re-
sponsible for what the parent does^ or neglects
to do^ on its behalf. Are we asked, ' Is this
right and just ? ' We answer emphatically,
Yes, It is right ^ for God did it ; it is just,
for God required it ; and He is a just God.

We have thus far proved the Church mem-
bership of infants in the Old Testament
Church, and that without the rite of cir-
cumcision, which in itself did not constitute
membership ; but was a sign or seal of the
righteousness of the faith which he (the
parent) had in God and His ordinance. Cir-
cumcision was the religious rite which recog-
nised and sealed the membership of infants.
It was an essential part of the covenant be-
cause it was the sign or seal of their faith.
" This is my covenant Every man-
child among you shall be circumcised " (Gen.
xvii. 10).

Circumcision introduced the subject of it to
religious privileges. It was not administered
as a mark of lineal or carnal descent^ to which
the infants of Israel were entitled, as being

OUR CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

the descendants of Abraham ; (1.) Because it
was denied to the Ishmaelites and Edomites
— the descendants of Ishmael and Esau — who
were lineal descendants of Abraham ; (2.)
Because the stranger, through whoee veins
coursed no blood of Abraham, might enjoy
the privilege and thus profess faith in Israel's
God (Gen. xvii. 22, 27). But it brought
the subject within a covenant which held
forth the bright promise of spiritual blessings^
viz., that the Lord would circrmcise their
hearts to love the Lord their God (Deut. xxx.
6). We have thus proved that the infant
children — '' little ones " — were not only ac-
knowledged by a religious ordinance to be
within the covenant, and in visible member-
ship with the Church of God, and the heritors
of spiritual blessings, but that the ordinance
was in no case to be neglected, under the
penalty of the child being " cut off from his
people."

But the ordinance was observed in the
Church for nearly 2000 years, until the coming
of Christ, and He himself was circumcised
on the eighth day (Luke ii. 21), thus in His
own person uniting the two dispensations.

OUR CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

The Old Testament Church, therefore, was not
.merely political or national, but spiritual — the
ordinance of admission into it being ** a seal
of the righteousness of faith'*'' (Rom. iv. 11).
This covenant seal, as we have shown, was
administered to infants eight days old in
token of their relation to God's covenanted
family, and of their right to the privileges
of that covenant.

We have now traced the Church member-
ship of the infants of believing parents down
to the period of Christ and the apostles, and
except it can be shown that it was cancelled
by Christ himself, or by order of the apostles,
it must still rem an in force — the privilege
and priceless heritage of every child of
believing parents. But there is not so much
as a hint or ii single circumstance in the
whole New Testament record to show that
it was ever the design of God to withdraw
the privilege so long enjoyed. But there are,
on the other hand, many incidental circum-
stances which confirm its continuance.

Let us ask the Saviour himself. He ex-
pressly approves of little children being
brought to Him ; He receives them ; and

OUR CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

taking them in His arms, fulfilling the
promise, '' He shall gather the lambs with
His arm and carry them in His bosom," says,
*^ Suffer the little children, and forbid them
not to come unto me ; for of such is the
kingdom of heaven." But those who were
brought to Jesus and received by Him, and
those who came to Him or follorced Hi"i,
were His disciples. These children, there-
fore, were His disciples just as truly as was
Simon (Peter) whom Andrew '' brought to
Jesus," or Nathanael, to whom Philip said
'' Come and see ; " or Philip and Matthew
and James and John, to whom Jesus said,
*' Follow me." AH those who " come to
Jesus," or are brought and received by Him,
are really and truly members of His universal
Church. Hence He here affirms of them,
^' Of such is the kingdom of heaven." If
this expression means ' the Church visible
on earth,' they are therefore recognised by
Christ himself as members of His visible
Church ; but if it may mean ' the Church
invisible,' then the greater includes the less,
and they cannot be refused admission into
the Christian Church. Jesus says, moreover.

OUR CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

(Matt, xviii. 6), ^^ Whosoever shall receive
one such little child in my name receivetk
mey Also verse 10, *^ Take heed that ye
despise not one of these little ones." Now
in receiving children into the Church of
Christ we receive them in Christ's name, and
according to the promise we thereby receive
Himself. We therefore most earnestly urge
upon every member of Christ's Church to
** take heed that he despise not one of these
little ones '* by saying, * What need has
Christ of them ? What benefit can uncon-
scious babes derive from Church member-
ship ? ' It is enough for the Christian to
know that it is God's will and command.
Where the true believer cannot see, he
believes ; and his faith is counted to him for
righteousness.

To receive one, in Scripture, signifies to
treat him as becometh his station — '' He
came unto His own and His own received
Him not" (John i. 11), that is, did not treat
Him with the respect due to Him. The
expression ^^ in my name " is explained, in
Mark ix. 41, to mean *^ because ye belong
to Christ." To receive a little child, there-

OUR CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

fore, in Christ's name, is to treat it as
belonging to Christ. Wherefore, if the
Church follow the command of Christ, and
treat little children as belonging to Him, it
must admit them into its bosom. And are
we not commanded to '' train up a child in
the way it should go ?" (Hebrew, ''Dedicate
your child to God at the opening of its way, ")
And Jesus himself said, '^ Have j'e never
read. Out of the mouths of babes and suck-
lings Thou hast perfected praise ?" (Matt. xxi.
16, from Ps. viii. 2.) Well, we still have
the children — the little ones — in the Church
during the ministry of Jesus. And just as
among the children of the Old Testament
Church there were the Samuels, Abijahs, and
Josiahs, so in the New Testament Church we
have the children brought to Jesus, and a
Timothy, who, " from a child (Gr. /3/oe^o9,
infant) had known the holy scriptures "
(2 Tim. iii. 15).

II.

CHILDREN IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH.

We have seen that the infant children of
believing parents were recognised throughout
the whole Old Testament dispensation, and
during the ministry of Jesus, as members
with their parents of the Church of God.
But how does it fare with them after the
ascension of Christ, in the time of the
apostles ? Let us inquire of Peter. On the
day of Pentecost, after Peter had preached
Jesus as the Saviour of the world, the
anxious inquiry is, " Men and brethren,
what shall we do." He replies, '' Repent,
and be baptized every one of you (Gr. let
every le of yours be baptized), for the re-
mission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift
of the Holy Ghost, y<?r the promise is unto you
and to YOUR children, and to all that are afar
off," &c. But what promise was to them

OUR CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

aud to their children ? There iimst have
been some promise. But those who exclude
children from the Church, shut them out
from all promises. That is clear. But the
* promise ' was the promise of blessing
equivalent to the blessings bestowed upon
God's ancient Church. No Jew could under-
stand the language of the apostle in any
other way. Now the promise was to the
children and to the * little ones,' as we
have shown in the previous chapter. They
were members of the Church, and therefore
heirs of its precious promises.

Let us draw a picture which might actually
occur, and which would undoubtedly occur,
if children were deprived of the right of
admission into the Church of God, according
to the practice of our Baptist brethren.
Suppose at the close of Peter's discourse,
as numbers present themselves for admission
into the Christian Church by the rite of
baptism, Peter should refuse to administer
this ordinance to the children of believing
parents, as he would do if he held ^ Baptist '
principles. Would not the aggrieved parent
naturally reply, ^ Our children have always

OUR CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

been admitted into tlie Church of God by a
religious rite, and you have just commanded
thht every one he baptized, and you gave us as
your authority — *' The promise is to you and
to your children^'* and, moreover, but last
year my child was received into the Church
of God by His own appointed rite ; and now
that you separate the child from the parent,
contrary to the practice of the Church for
2000 years, please be good enough to show
us by what authority you do this new thing.
If you will not admit it by baptism, by
what rite will you admit it ; else give me
your authority for rejecting it ? ' Can any
one lay his finger upon a single precept,
or hint in the Word of God, which would
serve Peter as an answer to the querist?
No. There is no such precept. Now it
cannot be supposed that such a radical
change could be instantly wrought in the
Church of God without some such iuquiry
as this. Yet we find no opposition to
Peter's practice. And why? Simply be-
cause his practice coincided with his precept
and the practice of the Church, and he
baptized the child with the parent.

OUR CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

But the objector will reply, ^ The command
is — Repent and be baptized,^ This is but
part of it. It is joining, moreover, that
which God has not joined. The commands
are separate and distinct. (1.) ' Repent ' —
to every one capable of repenting. God
asks none of His creatures to perform im-
possibilities ; and since children are not
able to covenant for themselves, God wills,
as He did in the Old Testament economy,
that the parent represent the child until it is
competent to act for itself, (2.) * Let every
one of yours be baptized ' (Greek). This is
the second specific injunction. What! says
the objector, will these unconscious babes be
baptized? Why not, says the apostle, the
promise is to you and to your children. Very
well, I submit ; such was the practice in the
Church for 2000 years, I know ; but these
Gentiles, they can't come with us ? Yes,
says the apostle, ^ all that are afar off.'
What, any one — every one ! Yes, whosoever
hears the gospel call, ' As many as the Lord
our God shall call.' Here is the gracious,
universal, free invitation of the gospel to
all who hear, to ^ whosoever will.' Not

OUR CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

I I

only is the ^iromise to you^ who now hear
and understand, but to your children; not
only to Jews, but to the Gentiles — ' all
that are afar off.' How full and how free !
Embracing all nations of every age, and
colour, and station in life.

Paul very frankly tells us (1 Cor. vii. 14)
that when either father or mother is a be-
liever the children are holy, " 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," that is, set apart, dedicated to
God. Here the apostle draws an obvious
distinction between the children of believing
parents and the children of unbelievers ; the
one class being * holy ' the other * unclean.'
Now those Churches which refuse all children
make no such distinction — all are treated
alike — all are unclean. The practice of these
Churches, therefore, is not in accordance with
the precepts of the apostles.

Where, then, is the authority for setting
aside this precious ordinance? Not in the
Bible; for no man has ever laid his finger
on a single passage of God's Word where,

OUK CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

hear
i; not
-'all
free !
and

leviDg
id the
band ;
t now
ited to
bvious
iieving
s ; the
clean.*
lildren
:reated
f these
e with

?etting

in the

finger

where,

by command, or example, or fair inference,
the great principle of infant Church member-
ship was ever revoked. And the opponents
of this long established, never-revoked ordi-
nance, have not the privilege accorded to
them by any rule of right or of controversy,
to der^and an express warrant saying in so
many words — ' Thou shalt baptize infants.'
They must show, or remain for ever van-
quished, an express command to the efiect,
*Thou shalt not baptize infants;' for an
institution which is God-appointed, and has
the sanction of His Church in all ages, can
be revoked by God onl}^ Now, notwith-
standing the volumes that have been written
against the membership of infants, it has
never been shown that Christ or tlie apostles
ever gave the slightest intimation to lead to
the conclusion that their membership was to
cease at any given time. We justly conclude,
therefore, that the Church membership of
infants is, at this moment, the standing law
of the true Church of God. He Himself
granted to His Church the privilege which
we advocate, and nothing but His own act
can take it away.

•^m

OUH CHILDREN FOll CHRIST.

At tlie resurrection of Christ His Church
was remodelled as rega^'ds its outward or-
ganisation, to suit the altered circumstances
in which it was thereafter to exist. The
civil code of laws peculiar to the Jews is to
be no longer binding, because the Church is
to include other nations. The ceremonial law
has had its complete fulfilment in Jesus —
the Great Sacrifice. There can no longer be
the high priest in the Church, because our
Great High Priest has passed into the
heavens. Circumcision is no longer required.
But mark, the grand essentials of a living
(Mirch are unaltered. The headship and
membership and ordinances essential to
vitality remain the same. Such a change
merely passed over the Church, as passes on
a tree when its sere leaves are shed to give
place to the fresh green leaves of spring.
The tree is the same in root, and trunk, and
brancli, though the leaves he difterent. So
the Church remains the same Church, in
trunk and branch, though the outward forms
be difi*erent. To the Old belonged sacri-
fices, the Sabbath, the Passover, and divers
baptisms. To the New, preaching, the

OUR CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

Sabbath, the Lord's Supper and Baptism,
viz., by water, and by the Spirit. The mem-
bership and headship are clearly the same.

This identity of the Old and New Testa-
ment Churches is clearly taught in Scripture.
For instance, in Jer. xi. 16, we have the
Church of God spoken of under the figure
of an olive tree, ^^a green olive, fair and of
goodly fruit ; " and on account of their sins
*' the branches were to be broken off.'* Now
compare Kom, xi. 17-24. Some of the
Jewish branches '' are broken off." Notice,
the tree is not destroyed — the trunk and
some branches remain. *'A wild (Gentile)
olive is grafted in/' and thus made " to par-
take of the root and fatness of the olive tree."
It is affirmed, moreover, that " the natural
branches " the Jews — *' shall be grafted into
their own olive tree " — their own, not a new
tree. Thus the apostle Paul, taking up the
figure of the prophet Jeremiah, incontro-
vertibly establishes the identity of the Old
and the New Testament Churches.

Since infants are entitled by the divine
law to church membership, the only re-
maining question is, ' By what ordinance

OUR CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

are tliey to be admitted?' They must be
admitted by baptism, or without it, it being
the only initiatory ordinance. To receive
them without baptism would make it a
useless ordinance in the Church of God ; for
if infants can be admitted without baptism,
so can adults. But adults, according to
Scripture, must be received bj baptism.
Under the Old Testament dispensation
children were admitted to membership by
the same ordinance as their parents. Where-
fore, since believing adults are to be received
into membership by baptism, we are shut
up to the conclusion that their infant chil-
dren are to be received by baptism also;
because it has been the law from the begin-
ning that the parent and child are admitted
by the same ordinance.

This, therefore, is a conclusion at which
we have fairly and lori^^^ly arrived, viz..
It is the design Oj . that the children of
believing parents are to be admitted to Church
membership by baptism with water. And it
follows as a necessary consequence, that the
believer who objects to have his children
dedicated to God in baptism is opposing a

OUR CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

divine ordinance. He neglects to claim for
his child the spiritual promises and privileges
of God's covenant ; and, as the guardian
and representative of his child, renounces
for it all interest in that covenant.

If under the Old dispensation the child
thus treated was condemned for having
" broken God's covenant " (Gen. xvii. 14),
and was " cut off from his people," can we
remain guiltless before God, if we despise
or neglect this ordinance in behalf of our
children ?

Reader, I ask you solemnly before God,
can it be the wiU of Him who took the
little children up in His arms, put His hands
upon them and blessed them; who said to
Peter, *' Feed my lambs; " who said, ^^Suffer
the little children, and forbid them not to
come unto me, for of such is the kingdom
of heaven;" and of whom it was prophesied,
"He shall gather the lambs in His aims and
carry them in His bosom ; " can it be the will
of the Good Shepherd, we ask, that we should
receive the sheep into the fold, and shut out
the tender lambs ? No, a thousand times.
No ! Without are wolves. '^ Take heed then,

OUR CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

that ye despise not one of these little ones."
This immovable principle, therefore, remains
firmly established, viz., that those who charge
the advocates of infant Church membership,
who lay obligations on children, with practis-
ing a meaningless and unprofitable ordinance^
are opposing, not the precepts and practices
of men, but the precepts and practices of
God; for the all-wise, unchanging God
commanded the parent to covenant for his
child as well as for himself.

III.

BENEFITS OF CHURCH MEMBERSHIP.

What positive benefits accrue to the child
by being dedicated to God in unconscious
infancy? (1.) The benefits that unfailingly
flow from obedience to God. (2.) The be-
lieving parent, presenting the child in the
arms of faith and love to God who gave it,
may receive for his child just as much benefit
as God can bestow in answer to obedience and
believing prayer. Moreover, the parent pro-
mises before God and man, in the strength
of divine grace, to briug it up in the nurture
and admonition of the Lord, by setting it a
godly example, and by instructing it in the
way of holiness so soon as it arrives at the
years of understanding, and to give it an
education, literary and religious, according
as God has prospered him. Do these pro-
mises and privileges mean nothing ? If the

•^i!jsB^aittts,sismi.sssi

m.m&mm'

OUR CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

1);
lit

parent is a true believer, and faithful to his
vows, the benefit is unquestionably great. It
does not, therefore, necessarily follow that
because the child cannot understand the
nature of the ordinance that it can derive no
benefit from it. As well might it be said,
it does not know the texture of the clothes
it wears, or understand the composition of
its mother's milk, therefore clothes cannot
preserve its warmth, nor milk nourish its
body. The children that were brought to
Jesus did not understand the ceremony of
blessing, and must it therefore follow that
Christ's blessing did them no good? Where-
fore, a divine purpose may be served, while
at the same time the child does not under-
stand the nature or import of the ordinance.
But, possessing a divine warrant for baptizing
the children of believers, we dare not hesitate
to administer the ordinance even to an un-
conscious babe.

aafusmmmsmntr

ly.

BELIEVERS' BAPTISM.

The most common, and certainly the most
plausible, objection to infant baptism is, that
faith is necessary to baptism. And since
infants cannot exercise faith they should not
be baptized. There is here a glaring fal-
lacy. The assumption is groundless and
false. Faith is everywhere aflirmed to be
necessary to adult baptism, — and we, as
Presbyterians, never baptize adults, except
on the profession of their faith, — hence every
passage in the New Testament which proves
believers' baptism establishes our practice.
However, this is common ground with us.
We are at one with our Baptist brethren, 80
far as they go. But faith in the child is no-
where affirmed to be necessary to infant bap-
tism. God does not require impossibilities.
When a child was circumcised it was not asked

53^teIK«II3K*iS5i^SK7;

OUR CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

if it liad faith in the God who instituted tlie
rite. When the little chiklren were brought
to Jesus, He did not ask them the question,
*^ Do you believe in me? " It was enough
for Jesus that those who brought them had
faith in Him. And such a test is all that any
minister of Christ is authorised to ask. Every
candid man must admit that faith, or the
capability of exercising faith, is as essential
to salvation as it is to baptism. '^ He that
belie veth and is baptized shall be saved, but
he that believeth not shall be damned." If
this passage is madv^ to refer to children, what
is the disastrous conclusion necessarily arrived
at ? It is nothing less than the horrible doc-
trine of infant reprobation. If a child cannot
believe in order to baptism, neither can it
believe in order to salvation ; and if the child
that believeth not cannot be baptized, then it
follows that the child that believeth not can-
not be saved. If in the first member of the
sentence ^he that believeth' does no', exclude
children, neither can ' he that believeth,' in
the last clause, be understood as exclusive of
children.

But if the text at all applies to children,

OUR CIIILDIIT.N FOU CHRIST.

llion they cannot believe; and he that
believeth not shall be damned. The fact is
that the text applies to adults, and to adults
only. And so do the nine instances in the
New Testament, where baptism follows the
profession of faith. In each and all of these
instances, and in all similar cases, we would
not baptize except on the profession of their
faith. They were all adult converts to the
Christian religion, and not one of them had
a believing parent to have them baptized
when they were infants. The instances
recorded are in precise accordance with our
practice among adult converts, whether in
heathen or in Christian lands. When the
head of a family believes, he is baptized,
''he and all his^'' as in the case of the
jailer at Philippi. " Believe on the Lord
Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, and
thy house,'''' Here the faith of the parent
brings salvation to the house. Again,
'' He, believing in God, rejoiced with all

his house." In the Greek ^^ believing'* is
"■ ir. agrreeins: with " he,"

lOri

which

igj

limits faith to the head of the family. The
word of the Lord was spoken to all that

OUli CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

I'll

were in his house (Gr. ot/cia — household
including domestics as well as the members
of his family); but '' thou shalt be saved and
t/i?/ /touse^^ (ver. 31) is oIko^; — members of
the family only. This distinction completely
removes the objection put forth that t/ie word
was spoken to all that were baptized, and that
all were baptized to whom the word was
spoken. The same is affirmed respecting the
family of Cornelius : '' Thou and all thy house
(oiKos;) shall be saved." So also Lydia. '' The
Lord opened her heart, so that she attended
unto the things spoken by Paul, and she was
baptized, and her household'" {6iKo^). She
says, moreover, '* If ye have judged 7ne to be
faithful," &c. — Slie alone is spoken of as hav-
ing ** her heart opened," as " attending to the
things spoken," as being '' judged faitlifui; "
and it is expressly said that her house — the
members of her family — dt/co? — were baptized.
It is abundantly evident, therefore, that the
apostolic practice was to baptize the members
of the ftimily on the profession of faith by the
parent.

{I-

:!f

CHILDREN IN THE POST-APOSTOLIC

CHURCH.

If we thread our way adown the stream of
ecclesiastical history, we find that the bap-
tism of children has been the uninterrupted
practice of the Church of Christ in all ages.
The testimony of the early Church, from the
very time of the apostles, is wholly in favour
of infant baptism.

We will not dwell upon the fact that the
Jews, beforp the coming of Christ, baptized
all proselytes who were converted to their
religion, and their infant children. They
also baptized all infant children of the
heathen nations, found, or taken in war.
(See Wall's '' History of Infant Baptism,"
Introduction.) We will refer brieflv to a
few of the Fathers of the primitive Church.

I
I

' i

J 1

i t

OUR CHILDUEN FOR CHRIST.

ii jt

Clement.

Of Clement, who lived in the apostles'
time, Wall says (p. 2), after quoting at
length from Clement (Epist. Cor. chap, xvii.):
*^ You will see from these quotations that
the Fathers often from thence conclude the
necessity of baptism for the forgiveness of
sins, even of a child that is but a day old»^'^

E "*

Hermas.

Hermas, a contemporary of the apostles,
says (Book III. Sim*. 9, chap. xxix. ), " Who-
soever, therefore, shall continue as infants
without malice shall be more honourable
than all those of whom I have not spoken,
for all infants are valued by the Lord and
esteemed first of all ; " ^^ this being to the
same effect as our Saviour's embracing in-
fants and saying, ' Of such is the kingdom
of God,' is one of the reasons used to prove
that they are fit to be admitted into the
covenant of God's grace and love by bap-
tism " (Wall, p. 6).

OUR CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

Justin Martyr.

Justin Martyr, born a.d. 100, in the same
year in which St John the Evangelist died,
and, therefore, during his life, a contem-
porary of Polycarp, John's disciple, says
(Dia. Trypho, p. 59), '* We also, who by him
have had access to God, have not received
this carnal circumcision, but the spiritual
circumcision, which Enoch and those like
him obseT d. And we have received it by
baptism by the mercy of God, because we
were sinners ; and it is enjoined on all per-
sons to receive it in the same way,^^ Again,
Justin says (I. Apology, near the beginning),
*^ Several persons among us of sixty or
seventy years of age of both sexes, who
were made disciples to Christ in their child-
hood, do con tip ne un corrupted." He uses
regenerate — ai^v ■ 'vdo) — to denote baptism,
^^They are regen i ited by the same way of
regeneration by which we were regenerated,
for they are washed with water in the name
of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost " (I,
Apology to Ant. Pius, near the end).

All the ancient Christians, not one man

ill

% ■

i^^rJin'-imuA ' snjL^. ..mju ' a'niM:"

OUR CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

If 1 ;

excepted, talce the word regeneration, or new
birthf to signify baptism. By regeneration
was meant, not conversion, bat the initiation
into the Christian Church.

Iren^us.

Irenaeus, born about the time of St John's
death, is proved particularly to use the term
regeneration to denote baptism. He says
(*' Against Heresies," Book II. chap, xxix.),
" Christ came to save all persons by Him-
self, all, I mean, who by Him are regenerated
(baptized) unto God ; infants^ and little on£S,
and children, and youths, and elderly per-

sons.

Origen.

Origen (born seventeen years after the
death of Polycarp), who had travelled in all
the noted churches then in the world, speaks
of the baptism of infants as being universally
practised, and also as appointed by the apes-
ties. He says (Homily on Luke xiv.), '' In-
fants are baptized for the forgiveness of sin.
None is free from pollution, though his life

OUR CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

be but of the length of one day upon the
earth. And it is for that reason, because
by the sacrament of baptism the pollution
of our birth is tr.ken away, that infants are
baptized." Again, he says (Hom. viii. on
Lev. chap, xii.), " Besides all this, let it be
considered what is the reason that, whereas
the baptism of the Church is given for the
remission of sins, infants also are^ by the usage
of the Church, baptized, when if there were
nothing in infants that needed forgiveness
and mercy, the grace of baptism would be
needless to them." Once more, he says (Com.
on Rom., Book Y.), " For this also it was
that the Church had an order from the apos-
tles to give baptism even to infants." We
have here not merely Origen's opinion, but
an explicit affirmation that infant baptism
was the usage of the Church and appointed
by the apostles.

Celestius.

About a century after the death of St
John, Celestius was accused of the heresy
of denying infant baptism. He replies,
" As for infants, I always said that they

OUR CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

stand in need of baptism, and that they
ought to be baptized."

Apostolic Constitutions.

*' Baptize your infants, and bring them up
in the nurture and admonition of the Lord ;
for He says. Suffer the little children to
come unto me " (Book VI. chap. xv.).

The Council of Carthage, a.d. 25 1.

At the Council or Synod of Carthage,
held during the life of Origen, and only 150
years after the death of the Apostle John,
Fidus, a country pastor, asked if the bap-
tism of infants ought not to be postponed
until the eighth day. The council — composed
of sixty-six pastors — unanimously decided,
'^ That since the mercy and grace of God is
to be denied to no human being that is born ;
therefore, dear brother, it is our opinion in
the council, that we ought not to hinder any
person from receiving baptism. And this
rule, as it holds good for all, we think more
especially to be observed in reference to
infants, even to those newly bornJ*'*

OUR CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

Ambrose.

Ambrose, in commenting on Luke i. 17,
says, " But perhaps this may seem to be
fulfilled in our ti7ne and in the apostles^ time.
For that returning of the river waters back-
ward toward the spring-head signified ^,he
sacrament of the laver of salvation, which
was afterward to be instituted, by which
those infants that are baptized are reformed
back again from a wicked state to the state
of their primitive nature." Ambrose here
plainly speaks of infants as baptized in the
time of the apostles.

This passage of Ambrose is quoted by St
Augustine in his book against Julian, chap-
ter ii. Therefore, these three distinguished
Fathers, Origen, Ambrose, and Augustine,
expressly affirm that the baptism of infants
was ordered by the apostles.

Chrysostom, a.d. 347.

The famous Chrysostom says (Homily xl.
on Genesis), *' Baptism has no determinate
time, like circumcision, but one that is in

'VWWMMalMMHMHMNMHHHMi

OUR CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

I Ml

the very beginning of his age may receive it,
as well as those in middle life, or in old

age.

»>

Augustine, a.d. 354.

ih J

Augustine in the Pelagian controversy
(Pelagius denied original sin) asks Pelagius,
'' Why are infants baptized if they have no
sin?" implj'ing that if he denied original sin,
to be consistent, he ought also to deny
infant baptism. Pelagius replies, " Men
slander me as if I denied the sacrament of
baptism to infants ; " he adds, ** I never heard
of any one, not even the most impious heretic,
who denied baptism to infants." Augustine
responds, " Since they (the Pelagians) grant
that infants must be baptized, as not being
able to resist the authority of the whole Churchy
which was doubtless given by our Lord and
His apostles^ they must consequently grant
that they stand in need of a Mediator."

HiEROM.

St Hierom, writing twenty years prior to
the Pelagian controversy, says, '' If infants

OUR CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

be not baptized, the sin of omitting it is laid
to the parents' charge."

Paulinus, Bishop of Nola.

About the time of the Pelagian contro-
versy, Severus, who had built a church,
desired Paulinus to compose some proper
godly sentence to be inscribed on the font.
He complied in the following distich : —

" Inde parens sacro ducit defonte sacerdos
Infantes niveos corpore, cordej habitu.''

For the next 800 years a few quotations
from Wall must suffice (Hist. Infant Baptism,
Part I. p. 310). Aftor recording all that
has been written by the ancients for and
against infant baptism, impartially, he sums
up in these words, ** That I may tell the
reader, in short, the substance of the places
to which I have referred him, tkei/ do all
speak of infant baptism as a thing taken for
granted. I am confident there is no passage
in any author from this time to the year of
Christ 1150, or thereabouts, that speaks
against it, except Walafridus Strabo about
the year 850."

ill

-CTorf oi ii iii B

■

OUll CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

*^ It is notorious that almost all the learned
men in the world that have occasion to
mention this matter, do conclude from what
they read that it has been the general prac-
tice of the Church from the beginning to
baptize infants " (Wall, Part II. p. 9). " We
find no baptized person (except this Gregory)
that did so leave his children unbaptized "
(page 61). Gregory had his children baptized
at three years of age.

a
t
c
1

Modern Practice of Greek Churches.

" In the Greek Church there neither is,
nor lately has been, any such thing known
as the delay of infants' baptism " (p. 22).
^' The ancient Britons were Pedo-Baptists.
Pelagius was born in Scotland, and yet he
never heard of any herecic so impious as to
deny baptism to infants " (p. 89).

In summing up, we have to say that by
means of the highest authority in the Church,
the inspired Word of God, we have traced
the membership of infants to the close of
the New Testament canon ; and for the next
three centuries, by the concurrent testimony

■

OUU CHILDREN FOll CHRIST.

of the Church Fathers, we have conclusively
shown that the ordinance of infant haptism
was received by command of Christ and His
apostles, and was universally practised by
the primitive Church. Let all therefore
obey God, and ** despise not any of these
little ones.'*

IS,

«:i

'■I

PART 11.

T//£ MODE OF BAPTISM,

/SaTTTL^CO.

Although the learned labours of Dr Dale, as
given to the world in his Classic, Judaic,
Johannic, and Christie Baptism, leave little
more to be done in this field of criticism, for
the instruction of theologians ; yet there are
many young Christians in our Church, who
are seeking for a brief explanation of some
particular texts of Scripture, with which they
are continually assailed by Baptist controver-
sialists.

There are many admirable little treatises,
covering pretty much the whole ground, so
far as the grand leading principles are con-

OUR CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

corned ; yet none of them that has come
under our eye, makes the discussion of par-
ticular texts a specialty. A man may be
well posted in all the general arguments
usually advanced against the Baptist theory ;
he may be thoroughly conversant with the
admirable tractates of Dr Samuel Miller,
Rev. Peter Edward, Rev. Isaac Murray, Rev.
D. D. Currie, Rev. R. Sommerville, Dr Fair-
child, Dr Taylor, and others, and yet be
floored by an illiterate controversialist by a
simple reference to a knotty text. Such has
bee' he experience of many of our young
Chiiotians ; and, at the request of a number
of them, we will endeavour to reproduce some
brief conversational notes on a few difficult
points.

It is wonderful with what an air of autho-
rity and defiance the meaning of the word is
flaunted. Dr Cramp affirms that '' all the
lexicons say that the primary meaning of
baptize is to dip, plunge, immerse. No
learned man will risk his reputation by af-
firming the contrary." We ourselves heard
this outdone by a Baptist preacher, '' defying
any man on God's earth to get a dictionary

OUR CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

to give any meaning but to dip in, to immerse.
The true answer to any such statement is, that
it is gratuitously false. Dr Dale translates
^aTTTiXoy '' through all Greek literature " with-
out either dip or if/imersc ; and no Baptist
writer has ever taken either dip or immerse
or plunge^ through one half of Greek litera-
ture; and, moreover, no two of them have
agreed in defining the word.

Dr Carson, of whom they have boasted that
'' his like will not be found for a millennium
of years," says, '' My position is, that it
always signifies to dip^ never expressing any-
thing but mode,'''' He adds (page 54), " I
have all the lexicographers and commentators
against me in this opinion." Wonderful ad-
mission ! But Dr Carson was candid as
well as scholarly. This same distinguished
authority Dr Cramp, in the Preface to his
'* Catechism," recommends to his people.

Morell, another eminent Baptist authority,
says/^ That the word uniformly signifies to dip,
I will not venture to assert, nor undertake to
prove." He says again, ^^ We surrcLder the
question of immersion, and m doing so, feel no
small pleasure in finding ourselves in such good

I ^'-.

OUR CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

»>

company as that of Dr Cox." But what does
this eminent Baptist writer Dr Cox say?
Here it is : — '^ A person may be immersed by
jwuring; were the water to ascend from the
earth, it would still be baptism, were the
person wholly covered by it."

Dr Fuller gives up the word dip, and holds
to immerse — a word which does not express
action at all, as dip does, but simply condi-
tion : '' My position," he says, '^' is, that
/SaTTTi^Q) means immerse ; it matters not how
the immersion is effected.''

Dr Gale (Baptist) also gives up mode. He
says, ^' Baptism does not necessarily express
the action of putting under the water."

Dr Conant, the latest and — not excepting
Dr Caison — perhaps the most scholarly writer
on the Baptist side, uses no less than seven
distinct terms to define IBairri^ci} ; and then,
conscious that none of his defining terms can
carry him through all Greek literature, says
it means " a ground idea expressed by them
all." Three of the seven terms are dip, plunge,
immerse ; so on his authority, none of these
terms accurately define l3a7rTi^co, And yet,
with what consistency we cannot say, he uses

1 H

Hi'

K I

OUR CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

ill

I
I

I
f
I

immerse in his new translatica of tlie New
Testament.

Now, immersion does not express the action
of the Baptists in baptizing. It does not
express action at all. Dip is the only English
word to express their mode of baptism ; but
Conant translates the whole New Testament
without using it even once. And, in one hun-
dred and twelve passages from classic authors,
he can venture to translate ^ainL^a) by dip
only seven times ; and several of these, as
shown by Dale, are clearly in violation of the
English idiom.

We remark, as a self-evident truth, that
any term that accurately defines /SaTrr/fo)
must be capable of being used through all
Greek literature without violation of sense or
idiom. There is perhaps no better term than
our Anglicised Greek word baptize, although
Dr Dale has performed the task by employing
another term. But take the Baptist defini-
tions, dip, plunge, immerse, and apply them to
a few passages selected at random, and note
the absurdity.

lake the oft-quoted passage from Aristotle,
*' The sea-coast was baptized by the tide.'*

OUR CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

If the Greek ^aTrr/fo) is equivalent to Baptist
practice, the sea-coast would have to be taken
up and dipped^ plunged^ or immersed in the
tide. So also of the ^^ wail baptized with
arrows^ The wall, however, was not taken up
and plunged OT dipped into a bundle of arrows.
The arrows fell in showers upon the wall.
Alexander the Great, having drunk to ex-
cess, is said to be " baptized with wine." If
^aTTTi^co here means dip, plunge, immerse, he
must have been immersed in the wine-cask,
and left there a sufficient time for the absorp-
tion of wine through the pores to produce
intoxication. Probably he would get drowned
before he would get drunk

The ancient Greeks poured water into the
wine, thus '' baptizing it."

The servant of Leucippe, ^^ baptized by the
same drug," according to Tatius, was not,
immersed or dipped into a pile of drugs, but
simply brought into a condition of stupefac-
tion. So also when " Midnight baptized
the city with sleep," who thinks of midnight
taking up the city in its arms and dipping or
plunging it into sleep ?

Again, those who are '^ baptized into

w^l

OUR CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

Chrish " (Gal. iii. 27), or ^^ baptized into one
body" (1 Cor. xii. 13), cannot be supposed,
by any constraint . of figure, to have been
hastily dipped into Christ j and as quickly taken
out^ which must be the case if Pairri^m is
equivalent in meaning to Baptist practice. The
true significance is found in the abiding union
between Christ and believers by the baptism
of the Spirit : ^^ for by one Spirit are we all
baptized into one body, . . . and have all
been made to drink into one Spirit " (I Cor.
xii. 13).

Dr Dale goes over every instance in Greek
literature where ^airTi^co occurs, and after an
exhaustive examination of every passage he
concludes, ^' I know not of one case, where
/3a7rT/fa) puts a living man into the water
simply, and withdraws him from it by the
party putting him in." He adds further,
** To say that a baptism may be produced by
a dipping, is to say what the Greek language
will be searched in vain to sustain." His
conclusions have been endorsed by nearly
all the eminent scholars and divines in
America, as may be seen by consulting his
works.

OUR CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

But a word about the lexicons, of which
so much has been asserted.

1. Parkhurst's Lexicon. Under jSavri^M we have

these words, " Baptize with the Holy Ghost ;
for anciently the water was copiously poured on
those who were baptized."

2. Gases, a Greek, and a very learned man, in his

" Lexicon of Ancient Greek " defines /3acrr/^w
by brecho (to wet or moisten), louo (to wash),
antleo (to draw water).

3. Scapula defines in Latin, tingo, dbluo, lavo,

immergOy haurio. The first, tingo, is the exact
equivalent of haptizo. Dr Smith, classical
examiner to the University of London, defines
these as follows : —

(1.) Tingo — To moisten, to wet, to bathe, to

colour, to tinge, to dye, to paint.
(2.) Lavo — To wash, to bathe, to moisten, to

wet, to bedew, to wash away.
(3.) Ahluo — To wash off or away, to purify, to

cleanse by washing.
(4.) Immergo — To dip, plunge, sink, immerse,

to thrust into.
(5.) Haurio — To draw out, to drain, to spill,

to shed, to breathe.

No fairer exhibit of Scapula can be given
than this, and yet Baptist writers have the

■J

'I !i

OUR CHILDREN FOR CHRIST,

effrontery to claim his distinguished authority
for immersion.

4. Hedericus* Lexicon — Abluo, lavo, ehriare (to in-

toxicate), aqud obruo (to drown), opprimo (to
oppress).

He does not give dip or immerse as a possible
meaning.

5. Stockius* Lexicon (1725) — Luo (to wash), lavo,

intingOf tingo, haptizo.

Again we have no representative for immerse,

6. Schrevelius' Lexicon — Baptizo, mergo, ahluo, lavo,

7. Robinson's Lexicon — In New Testament, (1) to

wash, to lave, to cleanse by washing, to wash
one's hands, to perform ablutions ; (2) to
baptize, to administer the rite of baptism.

8. Greenfield — In New Testament, (1) to wash, to

perform ablutions, to cleanse ; (2) to baptize,
to immerse, to perform the rite of baptism.

9. Dr Samuel Miller — To wash, to sprinkle, to pour,

to immerse, to tinge, to dye.
10. Prof. Moses Stuart — ** Most evidently jSa'TriGfihs
(Heb. ix. 10), refers to the ceremonial ablutions
of the Jews which had respect to external puri-
fications."

lit

OUR CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

lavo,

3rse.

11. Pickering's Lexicon — *' In New Testament, to
wash, to cleanse by washing, to perform ablu-
tions, to baptize, or perform the rite of
baptism."

12. Yong^, English-Greek Lexicon, renders — To dip

by ^d'^Tca j to dip in by f/^jSa^rw ; immerse by
/Sacrrfiti and iii^dTTTbi ; immersion by /3a^9) ; a
dipping by jSa^jj and jSa-vJ^/j.

ySaTTT/fft), jBdiTTiofia and ^airrilio^, the Greek
words used in the New Testament for baptize
and baptism, are not even noticed as being
possible translations of immerse and immer-
sion^ to dip and dipping,

Kobinson, in his Lexicon of the New
Testament, under /SaTrr/fw, has the following
note : — " In reference to the rite of baptism,
it would seem to have expressed not always
simply immersion, but the more general idea
oial 'ition ov affusion ^^ovixmg), . . . "The
idea of private baths in families in Jerusalem
and Palestine generally is excluded. In
Acts ii. 41, 3000, and in Acts iv. 4, 5000
are said to have been baptized in one day at
the season of Pentecost in June. Against
the idea of full immersion in these cases
there lies a difficulty, apparently insuperable.

• iD i

OUR CHILDREN FOR CHU?ST.

i| III

in the scarcity of water. There is in summer
no running stream in the vicinity of Jeru-
salem, except the mere rill of Siloam, a few
rods in length. In the earliest Latin ve^'sions
of the New Testament, which go back to the
second century and usage connected with the
apostolic age, the Greek verb ^airrl^to is
uniformly given in the Latin form — baptizo,
and is never translated immergo^ or any like
Tcord^ showing that there was something in
the rite of baptism to which the latter did
not correspond."

Such is the testimony of the best lexicons.
JSTo wonder that Dr Carson, in defining
ySaTrr/fft) by ' to dip,' was constrained to add,
*^ I have all the lexicographers and commen-
tators against me in this opinion.''

And be it remembered that, when these
and other lexicons give immerse as a possible
translation of ^airritco in the classics, immerse
has its true signification, viz., '^ to put under
water there to remain^'' — not Baptist practice,
which is immersion and emersion, putting
under water and taking out quickly.

The true import of the word is, according
to Dr Dale and Dr Hodge, that it expresses

OUR CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

a change of state or condition^ without speci-
fying mode at all. Hence —

1. The sbore is baptized by the overflowing of the

tide.

2. A wall is baptized by a shower of arrows.

3. Nebuchadnezzar is baptized by the dew of heaven.

4. Alexanaer the Great is baptized with wine — in-

toxicated.

5. Wine is baptized by having water poured into it.

6. A lake is lapted {(3d'7rru) by the blood of a frog.

7. The Israelites were baptized (1 Cor. x. 2), in pass-

ing the Red Sea dry-shod, by the pouring of
water from the thunder cloud (Ps. Ixxvii. 17).

8. The Jews were baptized by washing their hands.

The washing of hands (Mark vii. 3), is trans-
lated by (SarrTi^Cfj in ver. 4.

Now before Baptists can make good their
boasting assertion that haptizo signifies " to
dip, and nothing but to dip," they must take
these passages and several hundreds more,
and baptize the subject or object after their
fashion. They must take the ship and dip
it in the spray. They must take the sea-
shore and dip it in the tide. They must take
up the city wall and dip it in a bundle of
arrows. They must dip Nebuchadnezzar in

OUR CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

the dew. They must immerse^ or dip, Alex-
ander in the wine until he become intoxi-
cated. If they accomplish this, we will
then ask them to immerse hyssop, and cedar
wood, and a living bird in the blood of a
slain bird (Lev. xiv. 6). If they successfully
accomplish these several feats, then, but
not till then, can they truthfully claim for
/SaTrr/fo) that its primary meaning is dip or
immerse,*

Let us quote briefly a few more " Men of
note and learning" who deny that /SaTrr/fw
means to dip or immerse exclusively.

Dr Charles Hodge, of Princeton, U.S.A.,
acknowledged by all Scotch and American
colleges to be one of the ablest living theo-
logians, says (" Systematic Theology," Book
III. p. 536): ^' So far as the New Testament
is concerned, there is not a single case where
baptism necessarily implies immersion ; there
are many cases in which that meaning is
entirely inadmissible, and many more in

* It is a significant fact that the Bible Revision Com-
mittee have unanimously agreed to retain the words "baptize "
and " baptism " in their new translation, no one of all the
Committee being, for even a moment, inclined to substitute
the words "immerse" and "immersion."

OUR CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

which it is in the highest degree improb-
able." This is his conclusion after a
thorough discussion of the several passages
where /SaTrrtfcw occurs in the New Testament.
He also shows from classic and patristic
usage that immersiouists have no counte-
nance from these sources.

Many texts can be quoted from the
Septuagint (the Greek version of the Old
Testament), to prove that ^ttTrro) and fiaTrrl^o)
cannot, by any stretch of metaphor, mean
to immerse the entire hody, pairril^ci) never
means * to dip;' and fiaTTTco only to dip a
part — to touch slightly^ like the Latin tingo.

Daniel iv. 33 — " Nebuchadnezzar was
wet {€^d<pr) — baptized or bapted) with the
dew of heaven. '^ Who so brave as to call
this an immersion ?

Again: Leviticus iv. 17 — "The priest shall
dip his finger in some of the blood;" — dip
is expressed by ^ou^ei, part of ^diTT(o.

Also Leviticus xiv. 6 — " As for the living
bird, he shall take it and the cedar- wood,
and the hyssop, and shall dip {^cu^ei) thorn
and the living bird in the blood of the bird
that was slain." It would be a very difficult

OUU CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

i I

undertaking, we think, to immerse all these
things in the blood of a bird.

Joshua iii. 15 — ^' ilie feet of the priests
were dipped (€^d<j>7j(Tav) in the brim of the
water." They were not immersed; therefore
bapto cannot mean to immerse or dip the
entire hody^ but simply to touch or dip a part,

1 Samuel xiv. 27 — Jonathan ^^ dipped"
(e^ayjrev) the end of his rod *^ in a honey-
comb."

Now will any man affirm that ^dino)
even, in these passages, means entire im-
mersion — a plunging of the whole body,
according to Baptist practice.

Baptist writers have assumed (later writers
have given it up) that /Sairri^eo is derived
from ^cLTTTcoj and that ^dTrrco means to im-
merse. We have quoted these passages to
show that they have no warrant for such an
assumption.

The celebrated Dr Owen (Art. on Baptism)
says, — ^^ /SaTrr/fo) signifies ' to wash ;' and
instances out of all authors may be given, —
Suidas, Hesychius, Julius Pollux, Phavorinus,
and Eustathius." He says further, '' No
one instance can be given in the Scripture

OUR CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

wherein /SaTrr/fo) (loth necessarily signify
either ' to dip ' or * plunge.' In every place
it either signifies ' to pour/ or the expression
is equivocal. In Suidas, the great treasury
of the Greek tongue, it is rendered by
made/acio, lavo, abluo, pur go j mundo,'''^

Origen, the most learned man of his time,
a Greek by birth, and wrote in Greek (born
seventeen years after the death of Polycarp,
the disciple of the apostle John), commenting
on 1 Kings xviii. 33, says, ** Elijah baptized
the wood of the altar." Now the record
tells us that the water was poured on the
wood. They did not take up the wood and
dip it in the water. Yet Origen, who of all
men should know the correct signification of
^aTrr/fci), uses it to express this pouring
of water on the wood.

Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, John's

Disciple.

Dr Walker in his ^^ Doctrine of Baptisms"
narrates the following circumstance : — A
Jew, while travelling in the desert with a
company of Christians, was converted, fell

OUR CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

sickj and desired baptism. Not having
water they sprinkled him thrice with sand in
the name of the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Ghost. He recovered, and his case was
reported to Polycarp, who decided that the
man was baptized, if he had onlv water
poured on him again. The formula of bap-
tism could not be repeated, as he was
already baptized in the name of the Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost.

Now Polycarp was for many years a dis-
ciple of the apostle John, and must have
known apostolic practice. The mode was
pouring^ and he refused again to pronounce
the name of the Trinity. He knew no such
thing as re-baptizing those who once had
received Christian baptism.

II.

PARTICULAR TEXTS DISCUSSED.

We have now shown the inconsistency of
Baptist writers, and their want of agreement
with reference to the meaning of the term
^aTrr/fo). We have also shown by passages
from ancient Greek authors, and by a large
number of lexicons, that dip and wmierse are
not the primary significations of this word.
We have seen that Dr Dale has carried
^aTrr/^o) through '' all Greek literature,"
without translating it by dip, or immerse, or
any such word; and that no Baptist can
carry dip, or immerse, through one-half of
Greek literature. Let us now, standing on
this high vantage-ground, take a survey of
New Testament literature.

The term first occurs in Matthew iii. 6,
*' And were baptized of him in Jordan."
Much stress is laid upon the expression ^^ in

OUR CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

Jordan," as indicating that they were bap-
tized in the river. Even if it could be shown
that the Baptist, and '' Jerusalem and all
Judea and all the region round about
Jordan," had actually gone down into the
waters of Jordan, the immersion would still
require to be proven independently of the
other circumstance, for they might have
gone into the water, and yet be baptized by
pouring. The most ancient pictorial illus-
trations represent John and Jesus standing
ankle-deep in the water, while John pours
water on the head of Jesus. But we do not
require this explanation to understand what
Matthew means by the expression '' baptized
in Jordan ; " for John is more minute, and
says expressly that it w^as *•' in Bethabara
beyond Jordan " (John i. 28), showing clearly
that ^' in Jordan " in Matthew refers, not to
the river, but to the district. If ^^ in Jordan "
is made to mean *' in the waters of Jordan^"*
then Jesus must have abode in the water, for
He came ^^ into (a?) the place where John at
first baptized ; and there He abode " (See
John X. 40).

We next meet the term /SaTrr/fw in Mat-

OUR CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

thew iii. 11, '* I indeed baptize you with
water ; but He sball baptize you with the
Holy Ghost and with fire." In conversing
with a Baptist young lady, we once remarked,
" You are apt to suppose from the expres-
sion, ' One Lord, o ae faith, one baptism,'
that since Presbyterians differ from you in
baptism there is agreement only in two-thirds
of our religion — two points in three. But
let us look at baptism to see how near we
are to each other even in it. It is done by
Presbyterians and Baptists in obedience to
the same command — the command of God ;
it is done by the same person — the commis-
sioned servant of God ; it is done in the same
name — the name of the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Ghost ; it is done for the same
purpose — to introduce into the Christian
Church ; the same element is used — water,
typical of cleansing ; and the only afe>ignable
difference is that the one ba^^tizes with water ^
and the other in water. Which do you
say is right ? " ^* Of cour,- ," she replied,
'' I say IN watery Yes, but "John baptized
w[TH water r A Baptist off his guard is no
Baptist.

OUR CHILDREN FOli CHRIST.

We are well aware that some have asserted
that the orignal — iv vBarc — might be tran-
slated '' in water " as well as '^ with water."
Such an assertion could have force only
with a superficial Greek scholar. However,
the Holy Spirit cannot at one time record
'^ baptize with water;" and again '* baptize in
water." We hold that ev vBarc is purely the
instrumental dative — mtk water — denoting
the element by which the baptism is effected,
and not the place in which the baptism was
performed. Apart from the Greek construc-
tion, which in itself is conclusive, we note
that there are other passages, such as Acts
i. 5 ; Acts xi. 16; and Luke iii. 16; where
^aiTTL^G) is followed by the dative case with-
out the preposition ev — l^dirrLaev vhari, vhan
f^aTrrlt^co 'u/ia? — and admits of no choice, but
must be translated " mtk water," denoting
the instrument. We give a simple illustra-
tion for the benefit of those unskilled in Greek
construction. If I say in Greek, iraTaaaa)
/oa/SSq) — 'I strike with a rod — I use a con-
struction exactly parallel with iSairrl^o) tf^arc —
I baptize with water — as found in the pas-
sages last noted ; and it would be just as

OUR CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

jrfced
fcran-
,ter/'
only
ever,
icord

absurd to render these, " I baptize m water,"
as to say, '' I strike in a rod." It is simply
impossible to render these passages, that
have the simple dative without the preposi-
tion, to suit immersionists ; and as the Spirit
cannot prescribe two positive modes, the pas-
sages that have the preposition en, — v/hich
superficial scholars might render " in water,"
must, apart from Greek syntax, be rendered —
" with water," as given in the authorised
version.

We can confirm this argument, conclusive
in itself, by another distinct argument. We
have the same construction in both clauses
in Matthew iii. 11, *^ baptize you with water,"
*' baptize you with the Holy Ghost" — the
same in Euglish aiid the same in Greek.
If " baptize with water " can be correctly
rendered " baptize in water," then it logi-
cally follows that we must also say '^ baptize
in the Holy Ghost;" if water baptism is
performed by plunging or dipping the body
in water, the baptism by the Spirit must be
by dipping the body in the Spirit. But
Spirit-baptism is by j^oiiring (Pro v. i. 23 ;
Joel ii. 28, 29 ; Acts ii. 17, 18; Isa. xliv. 3;

OUR CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

Ezek. xxxix. 29) ; this is beyond dispute and
admitted by all : but water baptism is ex-
pressed by the same construction in Greek ;
and, therefore, it logically follows that it
must be by 'pouring also.

Baptized with fire, — ^* There appeared
unto them cloven tongues as of fire, and it
sat upon each of them, and they were all
filled with the Holy Ghost" (Acts ii. 3).
The baptism with the Holy Ghost and the
baptism with fire were promised in the same
breath; the fulfilment took place at the
same time. In both cases the baptizing
element comes down upon the person. The
person is not dipped or plunged into the
baptizing element. Some Baptist writers
indeed, doggedly holding to plunge^ translate
*^ plunged into fire," making the passage
refer to everlasting fire. However, but few
Baptists would consent to read the passage,
'' When He is come, He will baptize you
with the Holy Ghost, and with hell-fire."
It shows, however, how very diflScult it is
for them to reconcile Spirit-baptism and fire-
baptism with dipping and plunging.

But if baptism by the Spirit and baptism

OUR CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

i*o

hy fire be by the descent of the baptizing
element upon the person, as every candid
man must admit; so in baptism hy water ^
the baptizing element (water) must descend
upon the person^ else there is no meaning in
words : for the same word — '* baptize with "
— the same in English, and the same in the
Greek — is used to denote baptism with water ^
with the Holy Ghost ^ and with j^r^.

Before leaving this chapter we note the
baptism of Jesus (ver. 13-17). Jesus replies
to John's objection in these words: — '^ Suffer
it to be so now ; for thus it becometh us to
fulfil all righteousness" (ver. 15). What law
of righteousness was to be fulfilled by His
baptism ? Evidently the law of consecration
to the priest's office. Every priest and
Levite, before entering upon the service of
the sanctuary, had to be thirty years of age
(Num. iv.), and set apart by means of the
water of purifying. These purifications Paul
calls " baptisms " (Heb. vi. 2 ; Heb. ix. 10) ;
"and thus shalt thou do unto them to cleanse
them: Sprinkle water of purifying (Paul
baptism) upon them" (Num. viii. 7). The
priest had also to be anointed (Exod. xl.

OUR CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

12-15), as well as washed with water. Note
how this law was fulfilled in Jesus, when
He said, ^' Thus it becometh us to fulfil all
righteousness.'*

1. The priest had to be thirty years of age. Jesus

is not publicly set apart by the water of baptism
(purifying) until *' He began to be about thirty
years of age " (Luke iii. 2, 3).

2. The priest had to be washed with water (Exod. xl.

12), sprinkled with water of purifying (which
Paul calls baptism), Num. viii. 7 ; Jesus " was
baptized of John in Jordan," by having water
of baptism (purifying) poured or sprinkled upon
Him.

3. The priest had to be anoinced (Exod. xl. 13) ; Jesus

was anointed, receiving the anointing or unction
of the Holy Spirit : "and, lo, the heavens
were opened unto Him, and He saw the Spirit
of God descending like a dove, and lighting
upon Him" (Matt. iii. io).

This argument will appear new to many ;
but let it not be rejected on that account ;
all we claim for it is, that it be allowed
to fitaud upon its merits. We are glad to
discover that no less an authority than
Gieseler supports our view, so far as to say
that one object of Christ's baptism was

OUK CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

[ote

hen

all

Fesus
)tisin
hirty

.d. xl.
which
" was
water
Lupon

Jesus
nction
eaveiis
I Spirit
Lghting

many ;
30unt ;
.Uowed
^lad to
r than
to say
m was

'' His consecration to His Messianic activity*'
— this activity being that of Prophet, Priest,
and King.

Now we are ready for our argument. If
His baptism was to be a dipping, or im-
mersion, as Baptists would have it, where
was the law or ordinance which He must
insist upon having fulfilled? His being
consecrated to any of the offices of prophet,
priest, or king, did not require an immersion.
It is, therefore, but fair to conclude that
there could have been no immersion in the
case.

But does some one, grasping at straws,
exclaim, '* But Jesus, when He was baptized,
went up straightway out of the water "
(ver. 16). '' Must not He have been m the
water before He could go up out ^ it"?
We are just going to prove that in baptizing
they went down to the water, but did not go
in; so that they could not come up from
under the water as Baptists would infer.
However, to settle the point on its own
merits, we remark that the preposition used
here is aTro, from; and Dr Conant in his
new Baptist version so translates it — '' Jesus

III

70 OUR CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

went up strsiightyfVLj from the water." As
a scholar he was compelled to translate it
thus.

Into the water, ^* They went down both
into the water, both Philip and the
eunuch" (Acts viii. 38). This is a
favourite text with immersionists. It is well
for them that so few of their leaders, even,
are masters of the Greek language. Let us
see what countenance the original of this
passage gives to their pet theory. ^^ Into
the water" — el? to v8ft)p. Their theory j-
rives a show of plausibility from the word
" into " (Gr. lii). In motion to a placo,
this word should be translated ^^ to " and
not '^ into " as in this passage. Dr Campbell,
a leading Baptist writer, lays down the
following rule for defining or translating
words. All must admit its fairness. " To
test the correctness of any definition or
translation, we have only to substitute it in
the place of the original word defined or
translated. If in all places the defining
word makes good sense, it is correct, if not,
it is incorrect.^^ Let us apply this rule to
the passage before us, and other passages

'•u

OUR CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

where et? follows a verb of motion. We
will first substitute *^ into " for eU, and see
if in all places it will make good sense.
^^He fell into (eU) the earth.'' <<They
went down into the water " — m to vBcop
(Acts viii. 38). ^' Jesus bringeth them up
into (et?) a high mountain " (Matt. xvii. 1 ;
Mark ix. 2). ^' Go thou into (eU) the sea,
and cast an hook" (Matt. xvii. 27). '' The
other disciple did outrun Peter, and came
first into (eh) the sepulchre; yet went he
not in " (John xx. 4, 5). Now did Jesus
and His disciples go into the mountain,
penetrating it so as to be covered over with
the earth? We think not. Did Jesus
command Peter to go into the sea bodily in
order to cast in his hook. No more would
be required of him, if he had to catch the
fish with his hands, instead of a hook.
Could John have gone into the sepulchre,
when " indeed he went not in "? Thus we
find that by translating 6t9 by into in these
passages, it makes two of them teach an
absurdity, and the third positively contradict
itself. Therefore, no man can say that into
is a correct rendering of et? after a simple

OUtt CHILDREN FOU ClIKlbT,

verl) of motiou. Scripture cannot contradict
itself, or teach absurdities.

We have said that eh is correctly rendered
by '' to." Let us try it. *^ They went down
to the water; and he baptized him." *^ Jesus
leadeth them up to a high mountain.'* ^' Go
thou to the sea and cast an hook." *^ Came
first to the sepulchre ; yet went he not
in." Here is good sense in every case, no
absurdity, no contradiction. We will add a
few more passages. ^^ The first day of the
week Cometh Mary Magdalene to (eU) the
sepulchre " (John xx. 1). In the 11th verse
it is said, '^ But Mary stood without at the
sepulchre, weeping " — eU cannot mean into
here. '^ Peter came to (eU) the sepulchre,"
verse 3d, and in the 6th verse it is said, ^Hhen
went he into the sepulchre ; " an entirely dif-
ferent form of expression being used here, as
also in the 8th verse, to denote (/oinp into the
sepulchre — eU is prefixed to the verb, elarjXOev
eh TO fivrjfjiiiov ; literally — separating '' into "
into its component parts — in to, '^ went in to
the sepulchre." In verse 4th we have simply
TjXOev eU without the prefix — *^ he came to
the sepulchre, yet went not in." Thus we

OUR CniLDKEN FOK CIlIUiST.

}}

have conclusively shown that el? to vBwp can-
not be rendered '' into the watcx," except the
verb has eU prefixed also, which it has not in
Acts viii. 38, nor in any passage referring
to a baptism.

With reference to the baptism of the eunuch
(Acts viii. 38), we have shown from several
passages that el? to vBcop cannot be translated
''into the water," but simply "to the water."
We have thus established the negative side
of the question, viz., that the narrative does
not favour immersion. It would seem indeed
to afford some positive evidence in favour of
sprinkling. The very passage, from which
the eunuch has been led to believe in the
Messiah, expressly states " He shall sprinkle
many nations" (Isa. Hi. 15) — the last three
verses of this chapter being properly con-
nected with the 53d chapter ; and in the rolls
then used there were no divisions into chapters.
If the apostolic mode of baptism was not by
sprinkling, how would the passage suggest
baptism to him that he should exclaim, " Lo,
water ! what doth hinder me to be baptized?'*

We remark, in passing, if immersion had
been the mode practised by John the Baptist

OUE CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

and the apo^itles, and, as Baptists would have
it, did it exist in all ages of the Church,
to the entire exclusion of any other mode,
then it would follow that this prophetic
utterance (Isa. lii. 15) as well as (Ezek.
xxxvi. 25), ^^Then will I sprinkle clean water
upon you ; and ye shall be clean," could
never be fulfilled to the end of time. What
an argument for the infidel, were the whole
world Baptists !

" He shall sprinkle many nations " — an
argument not only for mode, but for the
subjects also. A nation cannot be sprinkled,
if infants are excluded. We are curious
to learn how Baptists would undertake to
" sprinkle many nations " by immersing or
dipping the adult population.

'' They were all baptized unto Moses in
the cloud and in the sea " (1 Cor. x. 2).
Baptist writers try to evade the difficulty
suggested by this passage, by representing
the children of Israel as being boxed in by
the waters on each side and the cloud hover-
ing over them. This is not even a plausible
solution of the difficultv. Much better ac-
knowledge the difficulty, and say with Carson,

■'Tryk

OUK CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

" Moses got a dry dip" (p. 413). According
to Paul, the Israelites were baptized, yet they
went over dvy-shod — '' on dry land " (Exod.
XV, 19). How can Baptists, who are such
sticklers for the exact mode, dare wet the
feet of the candidate for baptism ? No sane
man can say that the passage of the Red Sea
by the Israelites was an immersion, yet Paul
says thej/ were baptized; therefore men, women,
and children, may be baptized witl ,ut being
immersed. But how, are we asl ;, w^as the
baptism effected ? According to Asaph it
was by a thunder-shower, therefore by pour-
ing or sprinkling : ^' The clouds poured out
water, the skies sent out a sound ; . . . the
voice of Thy thunder was in the heavens ;
. . . Thy way is in the sea ; . . . Thou led-
dest Thy people like a flock by the hand of
Moses and Aaron" (Ps. Ixxvii. 17-20). Here
we have a most vivid description of a thunder-
storm ; and the Psalmist expressly states that
^* the clouds poured out water." Paul says
they " were all baptized by the cloud even in
the sea," for ev rrj ve^ikrj is correctly rendered
'^ by the cloud," it being the instrumental
dative. The Israelites were not immersed^ yet

■W ^H i U 'PWfWWW OiiW PW n M l

OUR CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

liii

-II

they were baptized ; the Egyptians were im-
mersed but not baptized. Hero, then, is a
baptism by pourinf^, beyond all controversy.
Baptists will say — No ; but we prefer the
opinion of inspired men like Asaph and Paul.
Here, too, men, women, and children were all
baptized.

In 1 Peter, iii. 20, the salvation of eight
souls by water in the ark is made a type of
baptism (verse 21). Certainly Noah and his
family were not immersed — did noi even get
'•a dry dip" — yet the apostle makes their
deliverance from the general immersion pre-
figure baptism.

When Peter preached in the house of Cor-
nelius, and ""^ the Holy Ghost fell on all them
that heard the word,'' Peter says, " Can any
T[i?iX\ forbid water ^ that these should not be
baptized" (Acts x. 47)? This mode of speech
naturally implies that water was to be brought
to him, rather than that they all should be
taken to the water.

The jailer of Philippi was baptized, ^' he
and all his," in tlie prison at midnight, as
the narrative clearly implies (Acts xvi. 33).
He would not dare leave the prison at that

OUK CHILDREN FOK CHRIST.

get

liour to go to a stream, even if there were
such at no great distance. The narrative,
however, settles the matter, affirming that
'^ he w^as baptized, he and all his, on thespoV^
— this being the literal meaning of the Greek
word translated ''straio:htwav.'' So also Paul
(iVcts ix. 18), 'Mie received sight on the spot^
and, standing up (dva<;Ta^), was baptized. "^

In these instances the narrative records
nothing about rivers, or going down to the
water, yet individuals, and families, and, in
the case of the 3000 (Acts ii. 41) and the
5000 (iv. 4), multitudes were baptized on the
spot^ wherever they happened to be at the
time, whether it was in the hous3, or in the
prison, or in the public assembl3^ *' The
idea of private baths in families in Jerusalem,
and Palestine generally, is excluded" (Robin-
son, Lex. N. T.).

"Much Tvater'^ (John iii. 2, 3), ^non is
a Chaldee word signifying " abounding in
springs!^ This is in exact accordance with
the Greek, vZaTa rroXka, which is plural, and
should be rendered ^^ many springs,^'' ^' A
place still called Ainoon, a short distance
from the southern boundary of Galilee, has

iiii

l£ 'iS

OUR CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

been discovered, where there are mani/ beautiful
streams or rills. This, no doubt, is -^non
where John was baptizing'' (^^ Imperial Bible
Dictionary "). Such a place would naturally
be selected to meet the necessary wants of
the multitude who waited upon the ministry
of John.

The evidence against immersion in Mark
vii. 4, is very conclusive. In verse 3d it is
said, " The Pharisees and all the Jews,
except they wash (vlyfrcovTai) their hands oft,
eat not, holding the tradition of the elders."
This washing was effected either by pourina..
or by sprinkling. Water was "poured -.i
the hands of Elijah " (2 Kings iii. 11). The
Jewish purifications from defilement were
effected by means of sprinkling (Num. xix.
1 7). There was no immersion in the case, —
" they washed their hands; and the Pharisees,
so scrupulously exact in fulfilling law and
tradition to the very letter, complained to
Jesus respecting His disciples, not because
they did not immerse themselves^ or wash the
entire body before eating, but because " they
rcashed not their hands^ when they eat bread"
(Matt, XV. 2). The Greek is vl-y^rovrai — wash.

OUR CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

According to Robinson, '^ the idea of private
baths in families in Jerusalem, and Palestine
generally, is excluded," but here we are told,
Mark vii. 3, that ''all the Jews''' as well
as '' the Pharisees " observed this tradition.
From every point of view the argument for
immersion most signally fails. It must be
conceded, therefore, that this washing was
effected by poaring or sprinkling.

Now note the argument. This " washing
tlie hands " (Mark vii. 3, also Matt. xv. 2), is
called a baptism (ver. 4), '' When they come
from the market (dyopa) — ^'any open place
where the people come together, either for
business, or to sit and converse" (Robinson's
Lexicon, sub voce) — except they baptize them-
selves (Gr. painlawvTai), they eat not. And
many other things there be, which they
have received to hold, as the Baptisins (Gr.
^aTTTKTfiov^) of cups, and pots, brazen
vessels, and of tables" (/cXtvcov, couches).
Here, then, we have the washings of verse 3d
expressly called baptisms in verse 4th. But,
lest the objector might cavil and say that
two different circumstances are here referred
to, the one requiring merely a washing, the

v*a

OUK CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

other a baptism^ we make ^^assurauce doubly
sure," by noting that in verse 5th the
disciples are charged with *^ eating bread
with unwashen hands, ^^ not with neglecting
to immerse the body. The Greek word
here is dvLirTot^ — unwashed. The inspired
evangelist, therefore, employs ySaTrr/^o) and
^aTTTca-fio^ to denote a washing of the hands
merely, where an immersion of the entire
body is necessarily excluded. So also Luke,
^' The Pharisee marvelled that Jesus had
not first been baptized (I^utttIgQii) before
dinner " (Luke xi. 38). What then becomes
of tbe Baptist postulate, originated by Dr
Carson, — ^^dip, and nothing but dip, through
all Greek literature'^? It is eminently false,
if Mark, and Luke, and Paul (1 Cor. x. 2),
and the author of the Epistle t j the Hebrews
(as we are about to show) can be relied on,
as expressing the mind of the Spirit of God.

In the Septuagint translation of the Old
Testament and Apocryphal books, tlie sprink-
lings for purification and separation are tran-
slated by /SaTrr/ji).

Of Judith, a beautiful Jewess, observing
her ceremon.al purifications in the camp of

OUR CHILDREN FOR CHRLST.

bly
the
ead

:ing

Holoferne?, it is said, '' she baptized her-
self in the camp at the fountain" (Judith
xii. 7). Again, '^ He that baptizeth himself
(^aTTTc^dfxevos:) from touching a dead body "
(Sirach xxxiv. 27). This purification was
effected by ^' sprinkling the water of separa-
tion " (Num. xix. 20). In 2 Kings 5th
chap, we have the narrative of Naaman the
Syrian, who came to Elisha to be cured of his
leprosy. Why did Elisha send, saying, '^ Go,
Tvask (Heb. rakhats — to bubble up, to pour
out, to wash ; never dip^ or anything like it)
in Jordan seven times^^ (ver. 10)? Evidently
because the Mosaic ritual said, ^' He shall
sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from
his leprosy seven times, and shall prone unce
him clean" (Lev. xiv 8). ''Then went he
down and baptized himself {l^aTT la aro) seven
times in Jordan" (ver. 14). The English ren-
dering *' dipped himself," doe:^ not give the
literal meaning of the Hebrew word tacaL
Fuerst's Hebrew and Chaldean LexicoD,
(latest and best extant) defines tacal, to
moisten^ o sprmkie^ an i gives dip. immer.^e^
only as secondary meanings. He adds, more-
over, '^ The fiiadamental signification of the

OUR CHILDIiJ N FOR CHRIST.

stem is to moisten, to besprinkle!^ This word
the Septuagint renders by /SairTl^w, as express-
ing the action of Naamau in obeying the
prophet's command to wash, which we have
seen never means to ''dip," and which the
Septuagint renders by Xovaat, which also
never means dip, or any like word. Tims the
Septuagint agrees with Paul and Mark and
Luke, in translating the ceremonial purifica-
tions by /SaTTTi^co, What more should even a
Baptist want; and yet we have not exhausted
our store of evidence. The arsenal of Scrip-
ture is full of weapons for self-defence. '' God
is His own interpreter.'*

The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews
also speaks of the ceremonial sprinklings for
purification as baptisms (Heb. vi. 2) : " The
doctrine of baptisms {(BaTrTLo-fjuSyv) and the lay-
ing on of hands " — viz., on the heads of the
sacrifices (Lev. iii. 2). So also Heb. ix. 10,
•' Meats and drinks, and divers baptisms
{^aiTTicrfjioL^), and carnal ordinances." These
" divers baptisms " are the various purifica-
tions of the law without exception. Tliis
verse ig a summary of the bo -k f Leviticus ;
for ten chapters treat of ^' meats and di-iiiks,"

OUR CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

7»

i.e., meat-ofFerings and drink-offerings, — five
treat of '^ divers baptisms," viz., piirificatiou
by sprinkling and washing with water, — and
the rest of the book treats of '' carnal ordin-
ances." By noting this fact, we get positive
proof that the apostle uses the word baptism
to designate the legal purifications of the
Mosaic economy. Thus our evidence accu-
mulates.

The expression ''baptized for (with refer-
ence to) the dead" (1 Cor. xv. 29), in some re-
spects bears a close resemblance to the passage
quoted above from the son of Sirach, whicli
very clearly points to the ceremonial cleansing
''from touching a dead body" (Num. xix. ] 1).
If such were the mind of the apostle, this
difficult expression would have some light
thrown upon it. Death being the occasion
of administration, it might appropriately be
called *^ baptism in reference to the dead,"
Administered in the verv f\ice of death, it
might be regarded as teaching a resurrection.

Its close connection with the context,
however, might seem to indicate that tlio ro-
i'ereiice here is to Him that died., viz., Christ,
— baptized with reference to the dead, viz..

'IWjf "Mil

OUR CHILDllEN FOR CHRIST.

I: !

Jesus who died ; for the same expression,
*' if the dead rise not " (vcr. 29), is found
closely associated with Christ (ver. 15, 16).
The whole tenor of the apostle's argument is
to estal lish the resurrection of Christ and those
united to Him by faith. If the dead rise not,
what shall those of us do who are baptized
with reference to the dead Jesus, whom God
has not raised, if so be that the dead rise
not? If He be not raised there is no v'rtue
in His death, and consequently no value in
our baptism. If He be not raised, why are
we then baptized into Him? The virtue
and value of our union to Him is derived
from the fact that He has triumphed over
death — overcoming him who had the power
of death. We are baptized, therefore, not
merely to Him who died, but to Him who
died and rose again; ^* Who died for our
sins and rose again for our justification."
Whatever exegesis of this passage is pre-
ferred, it is evident that the dogma of im-
mersion finds no support from it.

There are two passages on which special
stress is laid by those who favour immersion.
These are Rom. vi. 3, 4, and Col. ii. 12. It is

OUR CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

uon,
)und
16).
nt is
those
) not,
)tized
iGod
i rise
v'rtue

ue in
ly are
virtue
erived
i over

power
•e, not
m who
■or our
ation.
is pre-

of im-

special
nersion.
2. It is

to be regretted that so many concessions have
been made l)y Anti-Baptist writers with refer-
ence to these passages. The meaning is
very evident ; and there is not the slightest
allusion to water baptism of any kind. In
Rom. vi. 3, the apostle says, " As many of
us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were
baptized into His death," not merely into
His life and obedience and atonement, but
also into His death and burial. The refer-
ence is to the intimate union between the
believer and Christ, as the result of the ope-
ration of the Spirit upon the heart, '^ by the
faith of the operation of God " (Col. ii. 12).
Hence it is called tJ e baptism of the Spirit^
the Spirit being the agent of faith in the
heart of man ; '' For by one Spirit are we ali
baptized into one body" (1 Cor. xii. 13).
*' For as many of you as have been baptized
into Christ Lave put on Christ." We are
here plainly taught that we are baptized into
Christ by the baptism of the Spirit, which
unites ihe soul to Jesus by faith, making it
one with Him — *• one with Christ Jesus "
(Gal. iii. 28) — thus making us partakers of
His death a? well as of His life and obedi-

•^' - *:'v- -.

"r ^-

IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-S)

1.0

I.I

23. 125

ISC

^ 1^

ui Ink

3U
US

14.0

11-25 III 1.4

^?W

Photographic

Sciences

Corporation

23 WiST MAIN STREET

WEBSTER, N.Y. 145S0

(716) •72-4503

W^^B.

^ >v

,.v

^^^.'^-

: <i> ^.

mmmammtk

OUR CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

ence. How are we buried with Christ ? how
do we die with Him ? We did not lay with
Him in the tomb literally, we did not actually
hang with Him on Calvary. Nor did we
tread the hill-sides of Judea with Him, yet
we are said to live with Him^ to suffer with
Him, But by faith we become one with
Jesus^ and are reckoned to have lived with
Him, suffered with Him, to have been cru-
cified with Him, to be dead with Him,
buried with Him^ risen with Him^ glorified
together with Him, — all in virtue of our union
to Him by faith and in love. If any one
should object and say, '^ But how are we
buried with Christ ? we never saw His tomb.
How have we died with Him ? " Here is the
answer, Kom. vi. 4, ^^ buried together with
Him " (how ? not literally, that could not
take place centuries after His death and
burial, but) ^' by baptism into His death."
Being one with Christ spiritually, we are
reckoned (Rom, vi. 11), as having died and
been "buried with Him." We become one
with Jesus and heirs together with Him, not by
water baptism, but bg faith, of which the Spirit
is the agent (Gal. iii. 26-28, Rom. viii. 11).

OUR CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

'^ In whom also ye are circumcised, . . .
having been buried together with Him by
the baptism by which also ye have been
quickened " (eyelpco, made alive, raised) Col.
ii. 11, 12. Now, by what baptism are we
quickened, or made alive in Christ? Is it
not the baptism of the Spirit ? That men
should find water baptism in these passages,
can only be accounted for by gross prejudice
and ignorance of the method of salvation.
And any plausibility that the theory seems
to possess, from the fact that immersion in
water has some slight resemblance to our
modern manner of burying in earth and
covering over the body, is destroyed at
once, by calling up before the mind the fact
that the body of Jesus was carried into the
tomb through an open door, and laid upon
the ledge of rock, in the same manner as we
lay out a corpse in the room preparatory to
burial. Where is the analogy between im-
mersion, and the laying out of a corpse in a
sepulchre, or in a tomb where there is stand-
ing room for several persons ? Thus we
see that in every possible aspect, in which
we can look at the theory of immersion,

OUR CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

C t

as deduced from these passages, it utterly
fails.

Believers* Baptism, — Such passages as,
" Many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed
and were baptized " (Acts xviii. S) ; and,
^' He that believe th and is baptized shall be
saved " (Mark xvi. 10), are adduced to
prove that baptism ought to be denied to
infants. (The latter passage is not found
in the two most ancient manuscrints — the
Sinaitic and the Vatican.)

This conclusion, however, in erroneous.
Such passages prove that the adults, who
had not received Christian baptism in in-
fancy, on account of the fact that the rite of
baptism had not been instituted when they
were infants, or who had not believing
parents, are entitled to baptism on their own
profession of faith in Christ. But to infer
that no infant ought to be baptized, because
some adults receive baptism, is a glaring
fallacy unworthy of a mind capable of in-
telligent thought.

We hold to '^ believers' baptism " as firmly
as our Baptist brethren ; and we baptize
adults, who have not been baptized in in-

Kfl

OUR CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

as.

fancy, on profession of their faith. Such
has been Presbyterian practice in all ages
of the Church. But we also hold to the
right of believing parents to have their infant
children dedicated to God in baptism ; for
there is not a single instance in the New Testa-
ment of an adult receiving baptism^ rcho could
possibly have been baptized in infancij. This
is a fact worthy of particular notice. The
fact that the early disciples were grown to
manhood before Christian baptism was insti-
tuted, and that many of the early Christians
J were converts from heathenism, thus making

it impossible for them to be baptized in
infancy, seems to a superficial student of
the New Testament, to give a great promi-
nence to the baptism of believers. But the
universal practice of the Christian Church,
from the time of the apostles for more than
one thousand years, as we have already
shown, was to baptize the family, or house-
hold, on the profession of faith by the parent.
Before Baptists can deny our right to baptize
infants, and thus by a sacred rite have them
initiated into the Church of God, they must
show a positive precept which deprived them

OUR CHILDREN FOR CHRIST.

of their right to Church membership which
they enjoyed under the Old Testament dis-
pensation. This they have not done, and
can never do. Then let all ponder the words
of Him, who was to take the lambs in His
arm, and carry them in His bosom : " Take
heed that ye despise not one of these little

ones.

»»

THE END.

PRINTED BY BALLANTYNB AND COMPANY
EDISBDRGU AND LONDON

ifpli

p which
Ejnt dis-
ne, and
le words
in His
" Take
jse little

BOOKS PUBLISHED

LYON & GEMMELL

aEORQE IV. BRIDGE, EDINBURGH.

8vo, cloth, 6s.,

THE SHADOW OF CALVARY:

GETHSEMA.NE-THE ARREST— THE TRIAL.
By II UGH MARTIN, D.D.

Crown 8vo, cloth, 5s., with Preface by Dr Smeaton,

M*CRIE'3 (DR THOMAS) STATEMENT:

A DEFENCE OF CHURCH ESTABLISHMENTS.

8vo, cloth, 5s.,

LITERARY GLEANINGS,

ARRANGED IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER, WITH INDEX OF

SUBJECTS AND SCRIPTURE TEXTS.

By the Rev. JOHN TYNDAL,

Author of "Antidote to Morisonianism ; " "Modem Pelaffiauism •"

" Free and U.P. Union," &c.

Second Edition, cloth, '2s. 6d.,

DR BEGG'S HAPPY HOMES FOR WORKING
MEN, AND HOW TO GET THEM.

12mo, clotli, 9d., or sewed, 6d.,
OUR CHILDREN FOR CHRIST:

A PLEA FOR INFANT CHURCH MEMBERSHIP ; WITH

BRIEF NOTES ON THE MODE OF BAPTISM.

By SAMUEL MAGNA UGHTON, M.A., of Nova Scotia,

Author of '« The Duty of the Cliristian Church in Relation to the

Temperance Reform " (a Prize Es-ay).