WTmicsr^ 
 
 Logical sm"^ 
 
 BV 811 .B44 1888 
 
 Beet, Joseph Agar 
 
 A treatise on Christian 
 
 Baptism 
 
^^.^ fXLCAj^-eyLjz-^'i^^ **^. 
 
 /^. ^. U-. 
 
 M). 
 
 ctca-^.^^..^^ /^ ^e/^C^O. 
 
 A TREATISE 
 
 ON 
 
 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
oxks hj) the same Jlwtltor. 
 
 Sixth Edition, Crown Zvo, Price js. 6d. 
 
 A COMMENTARY ON 
 ST. PAUL'S EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 'A masterpiece of Biblical Exposition." 
 
 Dr. Morison. 
 
 Third Edition, Crown Zvo, Price \os. 6d. 
 
 A COMMENTARY ON 
 ST. PAUL'S EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
 
 " His admirable Commentary." 
 
 Dr. Godet. 
 
 Third Edition, Crown Svo, Price 5J. 
 
 A COMMENTARY ON 
 ST. PAUL'S EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 
 
 "An exposition of the utmost value." 
 
 C. H. Spurgeon. 
 
 Fifth Edition, Crown 2>vo, Price is. 
 
 HOLINESS, AS UNDERSTOOD BY THE WRITERS 
 OF THE BIBLE. 
 
 " I go along entirely with almost every word of it." 
 
 Dean Vaughan. 
 
 London: HODDER AND STOUGHTON, 27, Paternoster Row. 
 
A TREATISE 
 
 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM 
 
 JOSEPH AGAR BEET. 
 
 HODDER AND STOUGHTON, 
 
 27, PATERNOSTER ROW. 
 
 MDCCCLXXXVIII. 
 
Printed by Hazell, Watson, & Viney, Ld., London and Aylesbury. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 THE following treatise is an amended and enlarged 
 reprint of papers which appeared in the British 
 Weekly during March and April of the present year. 
 
 To my argument several critics object, that all sorts 
 of serious errors are modifications of New Testament 
 teaching, and that my proof of Infant Baptism is over- 
 turned by my own disproof of Baptismal Regeneration. 
 But I have endeavoured to show that, whereas this last 
 doctrine contradicts utterly the broad principles of the New 
 Covenant, the practice of Infant Baptism is in complete 
 harmony with them and with still broader principles 
 underlying both Old and New Covenants. This complete 
 difference robs their reply of all force. I have also shown 
 that Infant Baptism embodies in the best mode an all- 
 important truth needing ever to be kept in view, which 
 if not thus embodied would leave the New Covenant in 
 one important point inferior to the Old. These argu- 
 ments, the critics referred to have overlooked. Their 
 oversight implies that we are bound to reproduce to the 
 letter the forms of Church life described in the New 
 Testament. This silent assumption marks the difference 
 between their standpoint and mine. And on this ground 
 
6 Preface. 
 
 the whole question must be decided. Is Christianity 
 a life adapting itself, in harmony with its own vital 
 principles, to its varying environment ? Or is it a verbal 
 prescription admitting of no development and adjust- 
 ment? 
 
 Fortunately, as I have shown in Section ii., our Baptist 
 brethren are illogical. Otherwise they would need to 
 reconstruct the polity of their own Churches. For there 
 is nothing like a solitary pastorate in the New Testament. 
 And it is a serious modification of the Church polity 
 there described. This modification, however, which our 
 brethren have long retained as suited to their needs, 
 I have endeavoured to justify, on the principles advocated 
 in this treatise. 
 
 So far as I have seen, no critic has ventured to deal 
 with my argument about the Lord's Day. 
 
 My readers must judge whether, as Dr. Clifford implies 
 in a paper in the British Weekly, Infant Baptism as I 
 have expounded it is "practically destructive of New 
 Testament Baptism and fearfully generative of the 
 errors of Baptismal Regeneration." But I greatly rejoice 
 to hear from him that the Church over which he presides 
 practises "the dedication of children in the presence of 
 the congregation (or at home) to God our Father, in 
 recognition of His redeeming love, and of our obligation 
 as Christians to train them in a knowledge of its sweet- 
 ness and power." May such recognition become uni- 
 versal in the Baptist Churches. To whatever extent 
 it prevails, it is a debt due to the Churches which during 
 long centuries have baptized infants. 
 
Preface, 7 
 
 May such mutual indebtedness greatly increase, each 
 Church borrowing from all others whatever good they 
 possess, that thus the blessings conferred upon one 
 Church may become an enrichment to all. 
 
 As this leaves my hand I have received a Handbook of 
 Scriptural Church Principles published at the Wesley an 
 Book Room. I observe with pleasure, so far as a hasty 
 perusal will permit, that its exposition of Christian 
 Baptism is practically the same as that which I have 
 here given. The whole chapter is worthy of careful 
 study. 
 
 Richmond, 7//z Septeiiiber, 1888. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Section Page 
 
 I. The Teaching of the New Testament . . . .11 
 
 Note on the word Covenant 24 
 
 II. The Baptism of Infants 28 
 
 Note on Proselyte Baptism ...... 43 
 
 III. Baptismal Regeneration 44 
 
 IV. The Significance" and Benefit of the Baptism of 
 
 Infants 56 
 
 V. The Relation of Baptized Children to the Church . 63 
 APPENDIX. References to Baptism by early Christian 
 
 Writers . 72 
 
A TREATISE ON 
 
 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM 
 
 SECTION I. 
 THE TEACHING OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 IN this treatise I shall discuss the purpose and signifi- 
 cance of Christian Baptism, the proper subjects of 
 the rite, the special significance and benefits of the 
 Baptism of Infants, and the relation of baptized children 
 to the Church of Christ. 
 
 Our inquiry takes us back to the dawn of the New 
 Covenant. 
 
 The silence of centuries was suddenly broken, 1 850 
 years ago, on the desolate banks of the Jordan, by the 
 fearless voice of a prophet of strange apparel and 
 bearing. For the first time in the memory of living 
 men, crowds hung upon the lips of a religious teacher. 
 Much that he said was in the strain of the ancient 
 prophets, whose words, treasured in their Sacred Books, 
 were familiar to all his hearers. One thing, however, 
 was new, and was so distinctive as to give to the strange 
 
12 Christian Baptism. 
 
 teacher his most common and enduring designation : he 
 was John the Baptizer. 
 
 Even this feature was not altogether new to the prac- 
 tice and thought of Israel. According to the prescriptions 
 of the Law of Moses, in many cases of ceremonial defile- 
 m.ent the unclean one needed to be purified by water 
 before he could again approach the sanctuary. Of this 
 we find a good example in Numbers xix. 1 1 — 22, where 
 a man who has touched a corpse is required to be sprinkled 
 with water by a man not himself defiled, and afterwards 
 to bathe himself in water. We notice also that in 
 Sirach xxxiv, 25 this purification is described by a word 
 which afterwards became the technical term for the 
 rite performed by John : A man who is baptized from a 
 corpse and again touches it, what is he profited by his wash- 
 ing? So in Mark vii. 4, in reference to other similar 
 purifications, e.g. those prescribed in Leviticus xi. 32, we 
 read of baptisms of cups and pots and brazen vessels, and 
 are told that the Pharisees returning from market do not 
 eat until they have baptized themselves. These ceremonial 
 purifications had already moulded the language of much of 
 the moral teaching ©f the Old Testament. So we read in 
 Psalm li. 7 : purify (literally, un-sin) me with hyssop, and 
 I shall be clean ; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. 
 And in Isa. i. 15, 16: Your hands are full of blood. Wash 
 you, make you clean. Complete purification of the inner 
 life was a conspicuous feature of the future deliverance 
 seen from afar by enraptured seers. And it was fre- 
 quently presented under the figure of washing with water. 
 So Ezekiel xxxvi. 25 : / will sprinkle clean water upon you, 
 
New Testament Teaching, 13 
 
 and ye shall be clean : from all your filthiness and from all 
 your idols I will cleanse you. AndZechariah xiii. i : In that 
 day there shall be a fountain opened for the house of David 
 and for the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for unclean- 
 ness. These ancient practices, teaching, and prophecies, 
 the Baptism of John could hardly fail to recall to the 
 minds of multitudes around him. 
 
 With Baptism was associated personal confession of sin. 
 So Matthew iii. 6 : They were baptized in Jordan by him, 
 confessiitg their sins. And, by submitting to the rite, the 
 baptized one acknowledged that the sins he confessed 
 were a stain needing to be washed away. That the rite 
 was never self-administered, but always received from one 
 who claimed to be sent by God, or possibly from some one 
 acting under his direction, taught plainly that the sinner 
 needs a purification altogether beyond his own power. 
 We notice also that John proclaimed the insufficiency of 
 his own Baptism, and announced the approach of a 
 Baptizer greater than himself and of a Baptism not with 
 water but with the Holy Spirit. This last announcement 
 recalls the prophecy of Ezekiel quoted above, where God 
 goes on to promise, / will put My Spirit within you. 
 
 The baptized ones became, and were known as, disciples 
 of John : John iii. 25, iv. I. Some of them remained 
 such even after the appearance of Jesus, and as distin- 
 guished from His disciples : Matthew ix. 14, xi. 2. But, 
 although doubtless they clung together, we have no proof 
 that they were formed into an organized society. 
 
 From John iii. 22 we learn that soon after His appear- 
 ance Christ began to baptize. The number baptized soon 
 
14 Christian Baptis77i. 
 
 became large, and the administration of the rite was 
 committed to His disciples : ch. iv. 2. Whether or not 
 the persons baptized were then enrolled as members of a 
 society, we do not know. But the emphatic announce- 
 ment by Christ, as recorded in Matt. xvi. 1 8, in circum- 
 stances specially solemn, / will build My Church : and the 
 Gates of Hades shall not prevail against it, teaches clearly 
 that the founding of a society was an essential part of 
 the work He came to do. This truth will shed important 
 light on the matter before us. 
 
 In the last words of Christ recorded in the First 
 Gospel, words spoken apparently only to the eleven 
 Apostles, we have the formal appointment of Baptism as 
 an abiding rite of the Church : Go therefore and make 
 disciples of all the nations, baptizing them. This does not 
 mean, according to the more probable reading, that 
 Baptism was to be the method of making disciples, but 
 simply that while gathering learners for the school of 
 Christ the Apostles were to baptize them, and also to teach 
 them whatever Christ had commanded. The accompany- 
 ing promise proclaims clearly that the rite was designed 
 to continue to the end of the world. 
 
 With these words of Christ, those recorded in 
 Mark xvi. i6 agree so completely that it is almost 
 needless to inquire whether they originally formed part 
 of the Second Gospel. By solemnly ordaining Baptism 
 our Lord made it obligatory on all who seek His 
 favour ; and thus made it a condition of salvation. For 
 we cannot enjoy His smile while we refuse to obey 
 His express command. We therefore do not wonder 
 
New Testament Teaching, 15 
 
 to find that in this passage salvation is promised only to 
 those who both believe the Gospel and confess their 
 faith by receiving Baptism : He that helieveth and is bap^ 
 tized shall be saved. The absolute rigour of the second 
 condition is somewhat softened by its absence from the 
 latter clause : he that disbelieveth shall be condemned. In 
 view of this command, thousands in all ages and countries, 
 seeking salvation, have received the sacred rite at great 
 cost and peril. They have dared thus to confess Christ 
 in joyful confidence that He will confess them before His 
 Father in heaven. 
 
 Very humbly and reverently we now ask, Why did 
 Christ, in full view of the tremendous loss and peril it 
 would in many cases involve, require this formal con- 
 fession ? Why did He, in a spiritual religion, ordain 
 an outward rite as a condition of salvation ? A partial 
 answer is not far to seek. Christ ordained and required 
 the outward rite of Baptism in order that Christianity 
 might assume visible form before men and present to 
 the world a united front, and in order that His servants 
 might recognise each other and thus be able to stand 
 shoulder to shoulder in the great conflict strengthened 
 by mutual counsel and encouragement. For this end 
 He required His servants to confess Him; and ordained 
 Baptism as a specific mode of confession. 
 
 Similarly, among other reasons, Christ ordained the 
 Lord's Supper, the one recurrent rite of His Church, 
 in order to maintain in it unity, and the strength of 
 unity. 
 
 The above exposition will shed light upon, and receive 
 
1 6 Christia7i Baptism. 
 
 support from, all other references to Baptism in the New 
 Testament. 
 
 We understand now the startHng exhortation of 
 Ananias to Saul of Tarsus recorded in Acts xxii. i6 : 
 Arise and baptize thyself and wash away thy sins. 
 These strong words evidently mean, Remove the stain 
 of thy sins by the water of Baptism. Ananias knew 
 that Christ had expressly ordained and commanded the 
 rite; and had thus made it a condition of His favour 
 and of the salvation He proclaimed. Therefore, for the 
 repentant persecutor, there was no forgiveness and puri- 
 fication except by formal confession of Christ in Baptism. 
 Now, to our thought, a condition performed in order to 
 attain a result dependent upon it is a means to that end. 
 Consequently, Ananias could speak, and in this passage 
 does speak, of Baptism as a means of salvation. 
 
 The strange occurrence here of the middle voice, 
 baptize-thyselfy reminds us that in his Baptism Saul was 
 himself the most conspicuous actor. Somewhat similar, 
 but without any reference to Baptism, the persons ad- 
 dressed being already baptized, are St. Paul's words 
 in 2 Corinthians vii. I : let us cleanse ourselves. So 
 I John iii. 3 : he that hath this hope in him purifieth 
 himself. By faith we claim the purity which, through 
 the death of Christ, the Spirit of God works in those 
 who believe. For faith is the condition on which that 
 purity is given. Therefore, in this correct sense, we are 
 exhorted to purify ourselves. 
 
 The passage just expounded sheds light upon Titus iii. 5. 
 Long after his own Baptism at Damascus, St. Paul wrote 
 
New Testa7nent Teac/iine'. 
 
 't, 
 
 to this Gentile convert, God saved us by means of the laver ^ 
 (or batJi) of the New Birth. And we have no need to 
 deny a reference here to the rite of Baptism. The words 
 which follow, renewing by the Holy Spirit, remind us that 
 these persons were born of water and Spirit. 
 
 These last words are from the lips of Christ speaking 
 to Nicodemus, as recorded in John iii. 5. And they are 
 easily explained. This member of the Sanhedrin, a 
 Pharisee, and apparently (see verse 4) an old man, shrank 
 from the public confession involved in the water of 
 Baptism. But in these words the teacher sent from God 
 reminds him that the New Birth wrought by the Spirit, 
 without which none can see the Kingdom of God, is only 
 for those who confess Christ in His appointed way, that 
 even for Nicodemus there was no way into the Kingdom 
 except through the gate of Baptism. The water is men- 
 tioned first as that which presented to Nicodemus the 
 chief obstacle to salvation. It is mentioned only once, 
 while the Spirit occurs in verses 5 — 8 three times, 
 because He is the active Personal Agent, whereas Bap- 
 tism is only a condition of the New Birth. 
 
 In complete harmony with Mark xvi. 16 are two other 
 well-known references to Baptism. In Galatians iii. 26, St. 
 Paul declares that his readers are all sons of God through 
 faith; and at once supports his words by saying that by their 
 Baptism, which he assumes all to have received, they have 
 put on Christ, and therefore, like Him, are sons of God. 
 He thus Hnks together Baptism and (see ch. iv. 5) adoption 
 into the family of God. But the Baptism referred to is, 
 as the order of the verses proves, a confession of personal 
 
 2 
 
1 8 Christian Baptism, 
 
 faith. This connection of faith and Baptism is equally con- 
 spicuous in Colossians ii. 1 2, where the Apostle teaches that 
 they who have been buried with Christ in Baptism have also 
 been raised together with Him by means of their faith in the 
 energy of God who raised Him from the dead. Similar 
 teaching in Romans vi. 4 : We were buried with Him by 
 means of Baptism for death. 
 
 In Acts X. 47, 48 is recorded the Baptism of some 
 who had already received the Holy Spirit. This proves 
 that the outward rite was needful even for those who had 
 indisputably obtained inward spiritual life. 
 
 In 2 Corinthians xii. 1 3 we read : In one Spirit we all were 
 baptized into one body . . . and all were made to drink one 
 Spirit. This refers probably to Baptism by water. For 
 we have here no suggestion of any other than the ordinary 
 meaning of the word baptize. St. Paul is speaking of the 
 Church which is the body of Christ, and of the Holy Spirit 
 who is its animating principle. By Baptism, his readers 
 entered the Church and were thus united to the body of 
 Christ. And by faith, of which their Baptism was a con- 
 fession, they obtained (Galatians iii. 2) the gift of the Spirit. 
 Consequently, to St. Paul's thought the outward condition, 
 and the inward Source, of the new life were closely 
 associated : In one Spirit they were baptized into one body. 
 Similarly in John iii. 5 we have a birth of water and 
 Spirit. So in Acts ii. 38 we read : Repent and be baptized, 
 each of you, in the name of ]esus Christ for remission of 
 sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. On 
 the other hand, St. Paul never uses the phrase baptize 
 with the Holy Spirit, found in Matthew iii. 11, Mark i. 8, 
 
New Testament Teaching, 19 
 
 Luke iii. 16, John i. 33, Acts i. 5. If our exposition be 
 correct, we have in i Corinthians xii. 13 a definite reference 
 to Baptism as the outward and visible gate into the 
 Church and into the company of those savingly joined 
 to each other and to Christ. 
 
 One more reference demands attention. In a passage 
 otherwise very difficult we read, water, which as an anti- 
 type now saveth you, even Baptism : I Peter iii. 21. These 
 words present no difficulty. For in all human language 
 we may, leaving out of sight the first cause, attribute 
 a result to its instrumental or proximate cause. If, as 
 we have seen. Baptism is a condition, and in this sense 
 an instrument, of salvation, St. Peter could rightly say, as 
 he here says, Baptism saveth you. 
 
 The above are the chief references to Baptism in the 
 New Testament. And they represent fairly its entire 
 teaching. All other references agree with those expounded 
 above. In all of them Baptism is the formal and visible 
 gate through which the members of the Apostolic Churches 
 entered the company of the professed followers of Christ, 
 a gate erected by Christ as, for them, the only way of 
 salvation. And this explains a few remarkable passages 
 noted above in which Baptism is spoken of not only as a 
 condition, but as a means, of salvation. The great import- 
 ance of the rite, implied in these references to it, I have 
 already in part endeavoured to explain. 
 
 So far I have spoken of Baptism chiefly as a divinely- 
 appointed and obligatory mode of confessing personal 
 faith in Christ, looking upon the rite as though it were 
 an act of the person baptized. But we must never forget 
 
20 Christian Baptism. 
 
 that, as matter of fact, no one baptized himself. This 
 proves that in Baptism there is much more than personal 
 confession. We seek its further significance. 
 
 In Baptism the already-existing Church received into 
 its fold a new convert. For the person baptized became 
 at once a member of the Society founded by Christ. On 
 the other hand, but for the Church, there had been no 
 preached word, no faith, no convert, and no confession 
 of faith. Now the Church is a living embodiment of the 
 New Covenant. It rests upon the great historic fact that 
 in Christ God has come near to man and entered into 
 definite engagement to give to him certain good things on 
 certain conditions. From this Covenant flow all the 
 blessings obtained by faith in Christ. And the objective 
 fact of the Covenant is of infinitely greater importance 
 than the faith or confession of any one baptized person. 
 
 Had we been present at the Baptism of Saul of Tarsus, 
 our eyes would have been fixed upon the new convert, 
 and our thoughts fixed upon the submission to Christ of 
 so determined an enemy. Probably, the baptized one's 
 own thought, as he came humbly and passive to receive 
 the rite, would be that the ancient promises were now 
 fulfilled, and that in Jesus of Nazareth whom he had so 
 bitterly persecuted a fountain had been opened for the 
 house of David for sin and for uncleanness. In other words, 
 whereas to onlookers the personal act of Saul would be 
 the most conspicuous element of the rite, to the baptized 
 person himself the one all-absorbing thought would be 
 about the infinite blessings objectively given to man once 
 for all in Christ and in the New Covenant, By recalling 
 
New Testament Teachimj. 21 
 
 <?> 
 
 that Covenant, Baptism becomes a divinely-erected monu-^^ 
 ment of it. 
 
 This second view of the significance of Baptism is 
 strongly confirmed by two important analogies. Of these, 
 the first is found in the initial rite of the Old Covenant. 
 The close analogy between the two Covenants suggests 
 irresistibly this comparison of their initial rites. But in 
 making it we must carefully bear in mind both the elements 
 common to the two Covenants and the essential differences 
 between them. Almost everything in the New Covenant 
 is found in germ in the Old. And in every case the germ 
 receives a development in harmony with the peculiar spirit 
 of the New Covenant. 
 
 At the institution of the earlier rite in Genesis xvii. 10, </ 
 God used these strong words : This is My Covenant which 
 ye shall keep, between Me and you and thy seed after thee; 
 Every man child among you shall be circumcised. God thus 
 made it a visible monument or token (verse ii) of His 
 Covenant with Abraham ; and, as expressly stated in 
 verse 14, a condition of the blessings of that Covenant. 
 Thus in the analogous rite of Circumcision we find the 
 two elements noted above in Baptism. Each rite was on 
 the one hand a monument of the great fact that God had 
 entered into covenant with man, and on the other hand 
 a formal and personal acknowledgment of loyalty to God, 
 an acknowledgment required by God as a condition of His 
 favour. 
 
 A second analogy is found in the Lord's Supper. 
 Although in the New Testament the two rites are never 
 associated or even mentioned together, (except possibly by 
 
22 Christian Baptism. 
 
 casual and silent reference, as in I Corinthians x. 2, 3,) the 
 Church has in all ages, guided by true spiritual instinct, 
 joined them together as the two sacraments, or at least as 
 the Roman Church teaches the two chief sacraments, of 
 the Christian rehgion. They stand together in a unique 
 position as the only outward rites designed for all the 
 servants of Christ. We therefore expect to find, under- 
 lying the special significance peculiar to each, a deeper 
 and broader significance common to the two sacraments 
 ordained by Christ. 
 
 In close analogy with the ancient rite of circumcision, 
 at the institution of His Supper our Lord said, as recorded 
 in I Corinthians xi. 25, This cup is the New Covenant in 
 My blood. In each case, the meaning is the same. Cir- 
 cumcision and the Lord's Supper were visible monuments 
 of the all-important historic fact that God had drawn near 
 to man and placed man in special relation to Himself. 
 
 In view then of the connection between Baptism and 
 Circumcision, as the initial rites of the New and Old 
 Covenants respectively, and of that between Baptism and 
 the Lord's Supper as the two universal rites of the Church 
 of Christ, it is impossible to doubt that also Baptism was 
 designed to be a visible monument of the New Covenant. 
 That Christ erected two such monuments, need not surprise 
 us. For the fact thus commemorated is infinitely the 
 greatest of human history. The one monument stands 
 at the entrance to the Christian life, and reminds us that 
 they only can come to God whose hearts have been 
 cleansed from the stain of sin, a cleansing beyond their 
 own power, but wrought by Christ in all who believe the 
 
New Testament Teaching. 23 
 
 Gospel. The other monument is recurrent along the whole 
 way to heaven, and reminds us that the blessings of the 
 New Covenant come through the blood and death of Christ 
 and that only from His pierced body and shed blood do 
 we derive the nutriment needful for our daily spiritual life. 
 Christian Baptism then has a double significance. It is ' 
 a divinely-erected monument of the New Covenant, and 
 of the purification therein required and imparted. And 
 this monument of the Covenant is also the divinely-erected 
 gate through which men born in Judaism and Heathenism 
 entered the company of the professed servants of Christ. 
 Either of these aspects may for the moment claim chief or 
 sole attention. So in Romans iv. 1 1 St. Paul speaks of 
 the circumcision of Abraham as a seal of the faith which he 
 had while yet uncircumcised, overlooking for the moment 
 the main significance of the rite as asserted by God at its 
 institution. But the view he took of the rite, though not 
 even suggested in Genesis, was a legitimate inference from 
 the narrative there ; and bore directly upon the matter the 
 Apostle had in hand, viz., the analogy between Abraham's 
 faith and faith in Christ. The other aspect had no such 
 bearing ; and was therefore passed over by St. Paul in 
 silence. So we, contemplating Christian Baptism as 
 pourtrayed in the New Testament, thought first of it as a 
 confession of faith and as a condition of salvation. Our 
 second thoughts revealed a profounder significance of the 
 sacred rite, viz., the New Covenant, purposed in eternity 
 and manifested in Christ, the divine source and foundation 
 of all Christian faith, confession, and life. As administered 
 by the Church, Baptism represents the work once for all ^ 
 
24 Christian Baptism, 
 
 done by God for man. As received by the individual it 
 represents man's appropriation to himself of the offered 
 blessings. Thus the Sacrament of Baptism reflects in 
 itself the two aspects of that New Covenant of which it 
 is a sign and seal ; and links together God and Man. 
 
 The common Hebrew word rendered Covenant denotes 
 always an agreement in which each of two contracting 
 parties binds himself to certain action on condition of 
 certain action by the other party. A covenant thus unites 
 two parties in a definite relation involving mutual obliga- 
 tions. As examples we may quote Genesis xxi. 27, 32, 
 where Abimelech makes a friendly agreement with 
 Abraham about a well ; and ch. xxvi. 28, where Abimelech 
 makes a similar covenant with Isaac. So in ch. xxxi. 44 
 Laban says to Jacob, Come noWy let us make a covenant^ 
 I and thou; and let it be for a witness between me and 
 thee. The express stipulations are given in vv. 50 — 52. 
 Another good example is found in Joshua ix. 6, 7, ii, 15, 16: 
 And Joshua made peace with them, with the Gibeonites, 
 and made a covenant with them to let them live : and the 
 princes of the congregation sware unto them. These cove- 
 nants were voluntary engagements by two contracting 
 parties, engagements which either party might have 
 refused, but which when once made were binding on both. 
 
 A very conspicuous feature of the Old Testament is the 
 series of covenants of God with Noah, with Abraham, and 
 with Moses as the leader and representative of Israel. 
 So Genesis vi. 18, ix. 9 — 16; ch. xv. 18, xvii. 2 — 21; 
 Exodus vi. 4, 5, xix. 5, xxiv. 7, 8. In these covenants 
 
Covenant, 2 5 
 
 God graciously bound Himself to bestow certain benefits 
 on certain conditions, and laid upon those to whom the 
 covenant was given, apart from any choice of their own, 
 the strongest possible obhgation to fulfil the conditions. 
 
 That the same word is used in these two cases, must 
 not be allowed to obscure the great difference between a 
 covenant of man with man and these covenants of God 
 with man. The former becomes valid only by the agree- 
 ment of both parties. Either party might have refused 
 the agreement, and would then have been free from its 
 obligations. But, for man to refuse a covenant offered by 
 God, is disobedience and rebellion. His obligations rest, 
 not in the least degree on his own consent, but simply 
 and only on the command of his King and Creator. For 
 He can do what He will with His Own. Consequently 
 the Covenant of God is practically the same as the com- " 
 mandment of God. So Joshua xxiii. 16 : The Covenant of 
 Jehovah your God^ which He commanded you. And Jere- 
 miah xi. 3 — 5 : Cursed be the man that heareth not the words 
 of this covenant, which I commanded your fathers . . . say- 
 ingy Obey my voice and do them, according to all which I 
 command you : so shall ye be my people, and I will be your 
 God: that I may establish the oath which I sware to your 
 fathers, to give them a land flowing with milk and honey. 
 Doubtless the word covenant was chosen, in spite of this 
 important difference, in order to emphasise the great truth 
 that God had taken man into special and friendly relation 
 to Himself and had graciously bound Himself to bestow 
 upon him definite and specified benefits on definite con- 
 ditions. But the difference must not be forgotten. 
 
26 Christian Baptism, 
 
 In Jeremiah xxxi. 31 — 34 God foretold that in days to 
 come He would make a new covenant with men, a cove- 
 nant pledging Him to pardon their sins and to write His 
 Law upon their hearts. And at the Last Supper, by the 
 words of its institution already quoted, Christ announced 
 the immediate ratification of this covenant in His own 
 approaching death. This New Covenant is an exact 
 counterpart of that given through Moses, differing from 
 it precisely as the Gospel differs from the Law. He who 
 graciously bound Himself to Israel by a special engage- 
 ment again bound Himself to men in later days, through 
 the Incarnate Son, in a still closer relationship, promising 
 to give pardon, and purity, and eternal life to all who 
 turn from sin, bow to Christ, and believe the good news 
 announced by Him. And, like the Old Covenant, this New 
 Covenant lays upon all who hear the Gospel the strongest 
 possible obligation to fulfil its conditions, an obligation 
 which no refusal of man can set aside or lessen. For 
 every covenant of God implies express command. 
 
 It is now evident that a man may stand in one of three 
 relations to the New Covenant. He may fulfil its con- 
 ditions and thus become a sharer of its blessings. In 
 this case, and in proportion to his faith and obedience, 
 he is in the Covenant in the fullest sense. Or he may, 
 in whole or in part, knowingly refuse to obey the com- 
 mands of the Covenant and thus reject its offered benefits. 
 But his refusal by no means puts him altogether outside 
 the Covenant, or makes it to him as though it had never 
 been. For his disobedience will be followed by infliction 
 of the punishment threatened in the Covenant. In this 
 
Covenant, 27 
 
 lower, but very real, sense all persons born within sound 
 of the Gospel, and in proportion to their religious advan- 
 tages, are, whatever they may do, under the dominion of 
 the New Covenant. According to the principles therein 
 set forth they will be judged. 
 
 A third class have never heard the Gospel. They also 
 will be judged ; but not according to the prescription of 
 Christ, He that disbelieveth shall be condemned. For they 
 who have not heard can neither believe nor disbelieve. 
 In this sense, in contrast to the first and second classes, 
 they are outside the Covenant. Yet they are not outside 
 the eternal love of God and His great purpose of salva- 
 tion. But the love of God will treat them on principles 
 other than those announced in the Gospel of Christ. 
 
 The above distinction will greatly help us to under- 
 stand the purpose and significance of circumcision, of the 
 Lord's Supper, and of Christian Baptism. Each of these 
 was a visible memorial of the great historic fact that God 
 had come near to man, thus laying upon all who hear His 
 voice, apart from any choice of their own, special obliga- 
 tions. The Baptisms recorded in the New Testament 
 were a formal and visible obedience to a definite command 
 of Christ at the institution of the New Covenant. They 
 were therefore a memorial of the Covenant, an acknow- / 
 ledgment of the obligation involved in it, and a con- 
 fession of faith in its promises. And each administration 
 of Baptism was a fulfilment of a condition of the Covenant. 
 Therefore, when accompanied by faith, it w^as in the 
 highest sense an entrance into the Covenant of God. 
 
2 8 Christian Baptism, 
 
 SECTION 11. 
 
 THE BAPTISM OF INFANTS. 
 
 With the foregoing exposition of Holy Scripture, the 
 practice of modern Christendom seems at first sight to 
 be strangely at variance. Except in the Baptist Churches, 
 a small minority of the Universal Church, Baptism as a 
 mode of confessing faith in Christ is practically super- 
 seded in Christian countries by the administration of the 
 rite to infants, who from their age are incapable of con- 
 fession or of faith. This remarkable feature of modern 
 Church life as compared with the ApostoHc Churches 
 demands now our best attention. 
 
 It must be at once admitted that the New Testament 
 contains no clear proof that infants were baptized in the 
 days of the Apostles. It is true that St. Paul baptized 
 the houses of Stephanas and of Lydia, and the Phihppian 
 Gaoler and all who belonged to him : i Corinthians i. 1 6, 
 Acts xvi. 15, 33. But this mention of baptized house- 
 holds by no means proves or suggests that he baptized 
 infants. For a courtier from Capernaum and Crispus 
 at Corinth believed with their entire households : 
 John iv. 54, Acts xviii. 18. So apparently did the 
 Gaoler : Acts xvi. 34. Cornelius feared God with all his 
 house : ch. x. 2. And the household of Stephanas was 
 a firstfruit of Achaia : i Corinthians xvi. 15. This does 
 not mean that in these five families there were no infants, 
 or that the infants believed; but , that all capable of 
 
Baptism of Infants, 29 
 
 understanding the Gospel believed it. Just so in reference 
 to Baptism. The early readers of the Book of Acts and 
 of St. Paul's Epistles knew whether it was usual to 
 baptize infants. If it was, they would infer that, if in 
 these three families there were infants, St. Paul baptized 
 them. If it was not, they would interpret these words 
 to mean that he baptized all who were of suitable age. 
 From these passages, therefore, we can draw no inference 
 whether or not infants were baptized in the Apostolic 
 Churches. And we have no clearer references in the 
 New Testament. 
 
 In my Commentary on the passage I have endeavoured 
 to show that i Corinthians vii. 14 affords no evidence 
 whether infants were or were not baptized in the 
 Apostohc Churches. 
 
 It must also be admitted that in one important point 
 the Baptism of an infant differs from that of a believer. 
 In Baptism, an infant is absolutely passive ; whereas a 
 believer is himself the most conspicuous actor. So great 
 is this difference that two of the most important assertions 
 about Baptism in the New Testament are altogether in- 
 applicable to the Baptism of infants. Certainly, even 
 though baptized for Christy they have not so put on Christ as 
 to be in Him sons of God through faith : Galatians iii. 26. 
 For, to say that infants have faith, is to make St. Paul's 
 words meaningless. Nor have infants been raised with 
 Christ through faith in the working of God, who raised Him 
 from the dead: Colossians ii. 12. Moreover, to speak of 
 Baptism as a means of salvation, as was implied in the '' 
 words of Ananias quoted in Acts xxii. 16, is to introduce, 
 
30 Christian Baptism. 
 
 if applied to infants, as I shall show in Section iii., an 
 element utterly opposed to the spirit of the New 
 Testament. 
 
 In spite of all this, the practice of baptizing infants was 
 apparently universal and undisputed in the former part 
 of the third century. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, who 
 was martyred in a.d. 258, in Epistle 58 (Oxford ed. 
 Ep. 64) speaks of a council in which it was discussed 
 whether infants should be baptized earlier than the 
 eighth day, the age prescribed for circumcision, and says 
 that the council unanimously agreed that Baptism need 
 not be deferred to that day. This unanimity in a small 
 detail proves clearly that about the general question of 
 baptizing infants there was in the province of North 
 Africa no doubt whatever. Origen, who lived in Egypt 
 and Palestine and died about a.d. 253, says in his 
 Homilies on Leviticus viii. 3 that " by the practice of the 
 Church, Baptism is given to little ones ; " and again 
 in his Homilies on Luke xiv., *' because by Baptism the 
 impurities of birth are laid aside, for this reason also 
 little ones are baptized." In his Commentary on Romans 
 bk. V. 9, we read that "the Church has received a 
 tradition from the Apostles that Baptism be given to 
 little ones." These works exist only in Latin transla- 
 tions. But their united testimony may be accepted with 
 confidence as expressing the opinion of Origen. The 
 earliest definite mention of the Baptism of Infants is at 
 the close of the second century by Tertullian at Carthage : 
 On Baptism ch. 18.* He opposes the practice, not on 
 * See Appendix. 
 
Baptism of Infants. 3 1 
 
 the ground of novelty or as inconsistent with the essence 
 of the rite, but simply on the ground of expediency. 
 Possibly, the Baptism of infants is referred to somewhat 
 earlier than this by Irenseus : On Heresies bk. ii. 22. 4.* 
 But the reference is not clear. The complete confidence 
 of Cyprian and Origen, in places so far removed as 
 Carthage and Palestine, and the argument of TertuUian, 
 prove decisively that the practice must have been pre- 
 valent at the close of the second century. 
 
 The scanty remains of Christian literature earlier than 
 Irenaeus contain references only to the Baptism of be- 
 lievers. So in Justin's First Apology (ch. 61) we read, 
 about converts : '^then they are led by us where there is 
 water, and are born again in the way in which we our- 
 selves were born again." Justin then quotes John iii. 3 
 as referring to Baptism. This language, strange as it 
 sounds to us, and liable as it undoubtedly is to serious 
 misinterpretation, is explained by the exposition in my 
 last paper. The rite itself was easily confused with the 
 New Birth, of which, as we saw, it was a divinely-ordained 
 condition. 
 
 In view of this conflicting evidence, what shall be our 
 judgment about the Baptism of infants ? Some will say 
 that the practice of the overwhelming majority of the 
 Churches of Christ in all lands and all ages ought to 
 determine our own conduct ; and that the manifest 
 blessing of God resting equally during long centuries and 
 to-day upon those who baptize infants and those who 
 baptize only believers disproves utterly the suggestion 
 * See Appendix. 
 
32 Christian Baptism. 
 
 that the former are neglecting, and only the latter are 
 duly observing, the ordinance of Christ. This argument, 
 which is by no means without force, I cannot accept as 
 decisive. For the many complications of the Christian 
 life make the apparent favour of God a very uncertain 
 standard of the truth of the doctrines believed by those on 
 whom He smiles. In another paper I shall be compelled 
 to reject a doctrine accepted for ages by an almost 
 unanimous consent of the Churohes of Christ. At the 
 same time, both in doctrine and ritual, a general consent of 
 Christian belief always demands respectful attention. It 
 will, I beheve, be found that widely accepted doctrines 
 and practices contain almost always important elements of 
 truth, even though possibly these may be obscured by 
 serious errors. 
 
 Others tell us that in the matter of Baptism we have 
 nothing to do with the practice and belief of later ages ; 
 that, inasmuch as the Baptism of infants supersedes to a 
 large extent, where adopted, the Baptism of believers, the 
 only form of the rite described in the New Testament, and 
 thus modifies the ordinance of Christ, we are bound to 
 reject it and to baptize only believers. 
 
 This decision I cannot accept. Even a doctrine is not 
 disproved by the absence of explicit statement in the 
 Bible. We ask whether it is a fair and logical inference 
 from other doctrines plainly stated there ; or, if not, 
 whether it contradicts the teaching of Holy Scripture ? 
 And according to the answers to these questions we accept 
 or reject it ; or if, through lack of evidence, decisive 
 answers fail us, we suspend our judgment. So with 
 
Baptism of Infants. '^^-r^ 
 
 forms of worship. We must ask, not merely whether 
 they are prescribed in the New Testament, but whether 
 they are in harmony with, or contradict, the spirit of the 
 Gospel. 
 
 It would be easy to retort on our Baptist brethren that 
 we have no instance in the New Testament of a Church 
 committed to the charge of a single pastor, as are almost 
 all the Baptist Churches. Indeed it is not too much to 
 say that the single pastorate is altogether alien to the 
 spirit and practice of the Apostolic Church. We have no 
 trace of it in the New Testament. For we have no hint 
 that the work committed to Timothy (i Timothy i. 3) and 
 to Titus (Titus i. 5) was permanent. But our brethren 
 may fairly say that the single pastorate is a legitimate 
 modification of the Church Order described in the New 
 Testament. It contradicts no command of Christ. During 
 long years it has suited and supplied the needs of the 
 Baptist Churches, and works well for them to-day. 
 Therefore, although not prescribed in the New Testament, 
 they accept and retain it as a legitimate development of 
 Church life, a development in harmony with their history 
 and circumstances. 
 
 How serious is the danger of rejecting an ordinance as 
 not divine because it is not explicitly taught in the Bible, 
 will appear at the close of this section. The New Cove- 
 nant is a life, not a prescription. And we have no proof 
 that the Christian life assumed at once all the outward 
 forms needful for its full development. Nor have we 
 proof that all its early forms were designed to continue 
 unmodified to the end of time. For these reasons we 
 
 3 
 
34 Christian Baptism, 
 
 cannot ignore the Christianity of eighteen centuries and 
 begin to re-erect the Church, taking the New Testament 
 as a working plan. 
 
 I shall endeavour to show that the Baptism of infants 
 rightly understood and practised is a modification of the 
 Baptism of believers described in the New Testament, a 
 modification retaining unimpaired all the significance and 
 benefit of the original rite and embodying in the best 
 form a truth of the highest importance ; that this modifi- 
 cation is supported by the analogy of a similar modifi- 
 cation expressly ordained by God in the Old Covenant 
 and embodying the same important truth, a truth common 
 to both Covenants; that this truth is so important that 
 to refuse the modification would make the New Covenant 
 seriously defective in this point as compared with the 
 Old; and that the Baptism of infants, though not ex- 
 pressly commanded in the New Testament, is in full 
 accord with everything there. I shall suggest an explana- 
 tion of the absence of an express command to baptize 
 infants ; and shall endeavour to show that refusal to 
 baptize them because we have no such express command 
 would, by inevitable logical inference, overturn an all- 
 important Christian ordinance highly prized by almost all 
 who refuse Baptism to infants. In the combined force of 
 these various proofs, I hope to find a clear indication that 
 in baptizing infants the Universal Church has followed 
 the guidance of the Spirit of the Truth and has correctly 
 interpreted the mind of Christ. 
 
 In order to appreciate the significance of Baptism, we 
 shall do well to conceive ourselves present at the adminis- 
 
Baptism of Infants, 35 
 
 tration of the rite in each form. And we shall best 
 reproduce the circumstances of the Apostolic Churches by 
 conceiving ourselves present on the mission-field, first at 
 the Baptism of a Hindoo convert and then at that of 
 his infant child. 
 
 At the Baptism of the father, our one absorbing thought 
 is that by that act the baptized one has definitely and 
 formally broken away from the heathenism of his early 
 days and has joined the company of the professed 
 servants of Christ. At the Baptism of the infant, the 
 baptized one does nothing whatever. He is the one 
 person present who is utterly unconscious of the solemnity 
 of the occasion. Yet the solemnity is as great as before. 
 We thought then of a brave man's personal decision : we 
 think now of the infinite spiritual advantages derived from 
 that decision by the brave man's child, with earnest prayer 
 that in due time he may follow in his father's steps. So 
 far then, although each rite is most solemn, the signifi-^ 
 cance of the rites is different. 
 
 Is there then nothing in common between them ? Yes. 
 In each case there has been an application of water ; not 
 by the baptized one, but by a representative of the Church 
 of Christ. Thus each rite teaches that God has come 
 near to man in order to draw man to Himself; and that 
 God requires, and Himself waits to impart, a purity 
 beyond man's own attainment. Had not God done this, 
 and had not the Gospel of the New Covenant been pro- 
 claimed in India, neither father nor child had been 
 baptized. In other words, in the Baptism of an infant 
 we have in full force the primary significance of the 
 
36 Chi'istian Baptism. 
 
 sacrament as a visible monument of the Covenant : the 
 secondary significance as a mode of confessing Christ, 
 and thus appropriating the benefits of the Covenant, is 
 apparently lost. This lost element we seek, and shall 
 find. 
 
 A third scene is now before us. The infant has become 
 a boy, and approaches manhood. Taught by his father, 
 he bows to Christ, and to-day he is formally received into 
 the Church. He now occupies a relation to God, to the 
 New Covenant, and to the Church precisely the same as 
 that entered by his father at Baptism. He belongs now 
 to the company of the professed servants of Christ, and 
 claims all the blessings of the New Covenant. The only 
 difference is that, whereas the father's Baptism took place 
 at his confession of faith, the son's Baptism took place 
 in infancy. In other words, the modification involved in 
 Infant Baptism is the erection of the monument of the 
 Covenant years earlier than the appropriation of its 
 blessings by personal faith and confession. It is evident 
 at once that this earlier erection of the monument of the 
 Covenant involves no spiritual loss. For the element 
 lacking in the Baptism of the Infant is found in the 
 subsequent confession of the baptized one. 
 
 This modification is supported by an important analogy 
 in the Old Covenant. The circumcision of Isaac differs 
 from that of Abraham as much as did the Baptism of the 
 Hindoo's infant from his own Baptism. Just as St. Paul's 
 statements cannot possibly be applied to the Baptism of 
 Infants, so we cannot apply to the circumcision of Isaac 
 the Apostle's words in Romans iv. 1 1 about the circumcision 
 
Baptis7n of Infants, 37 
 
 of Abraham, viz., that it was a seal of the righteousness of 
 the faith which he had while in uncircumcision. In each case 
 this inappHcabihty reveals the great difference between the 
 two forms of the same rite. 
 
 Why then was Isaac circumcised ? If the rite was to 
 Abraham a seal of personal faith, why not let Isaac wait 
 till he is old enough to exercise similar faith ? For, 
 certainly, the faith of the father cannot save the child. 
 If Isaac is to stand in his father's relation to God he must 
 himself walk in his father's steps. Reasonable as our 
 questions seem, they are silenced by God's command that 
 Isaac and all infant sons of circumcised fathers receive the 
 sacred rite. 
 
 The reason of this command is not far to seek. By his 
 birth in the family of the Father of the Faithful, Isaac was 
 placed, before his personal action began, in a relation to 
 God very different from that of the uncircumcised children 
 around, a position of greater privilege and responsibility. 
 And by the standard of this higher privilege Isaac must 
 be judged. So great and solemn is the responsibility 
 resting in all ages upon the children of godly parents that 
 we do not wonder at its formal recognition and embodi- 
 ment, by the express command of God, in the circumcision 
 of infants. 
 
 We have now found in the rite of circumcision the great 
 difference noted above between the Baptism of a believer 
 and that of an infant. Very different were Isaac's 
 thoughts about his own circumcision from those of 
 Abraham about his. To the latter, the rite recalled the 
 promise of God, the struggle and victory of his own faith, 
 
38 Christian Baptism. 
 
 and the Covenant with God in the day he believed the 
 great promise. To Isaac the rite recalled the privilege 
 and responsibility of being a son of such a father. 
 
 Here then we have a modification similar to the modi- 
 fication involved in Infant Baptism. In each case, the 
 second rite can be understood only in the light of the 
 first. In each case, the primary significance of the rite, 
 as expounded by God at the institution of Circumcision, 
 is retained unimpaired. In each case, the modification 
 was rendered needful by the different relation of father 
 and infant to the Covenant with God. And in each case, 
 it embodies important truth. 
 
 Now the relation of children to the God of their fathers 
 is an important element common to the two Covenants. 
 And its embodiment in the visible monument of the Cove- 
 nant is as important in the one case as the other. In the 
 Baptism of Infants it is suitably recognised. If it be not 
 thus recognised, the New Covenant is in this important 
 point defective as compared with the Old. And this defect 
 would be very conspicuous and unaccountable to thought- 
 ful Jewish converts to Christianity. Indeed it would be 
 a strong argument for retaining in the Church of Christ, 
 even among Gentiles, the rite of circumcision. 
 
 Together with this similarity of the Covenants, it is 
 right to notice a difference. The Old Covenant was 
 primarily national, and personal only by inference : the 
 New Covenant is the reverse. Consequently, whereas 
 Christ required from each believer in each generation 
 formal confession of faith, no such formal confession was 
 required under the Old Covenant from those circumcised 
 
Baptism of Infants. 39 
 
 in infancy. But this difference does not affect the simi- 
 larity just noted. We have abundant proof that in each 
 Covenant the personal favour of God was obtained by 
 personal faith and obedience. 
 
 It has been suggested that the defect mentioned above 
 might be supplied by a special dedicatory rite for infants, 
 Baptism being retained for believers. A sufficient answer 
 to this suggestion is that such attempts have hitherto, with 
 few exceptions, always failed through lack of authority. 
 Moreover, the relation of the children of Christian parents 
 to the New Covenant, a relation more important than life 
 itself, can be satisfactorily set forth only by erection in 
 infancy of the monument of the Covenant, in token that, 
 apart from his own action or choice, the child is placed by 
 his birth under its solemn responsibilities. 
 
 In the light of all this, we will listen again to the words 
 of Christ at the institution of the Sacrament of Baptism. 
 He bade the Apostles make-disciples of all the nations, i.e., 
 to bring them as pupils into His school. He also bade 
 them, while doing this, to baptize the nations and to teach 
 them whatever He had commanded. Here are three 
 transitive verbs with the same accusative case. To make- 
 disciples, is placed first, and in the imperative mood, as 
 being the one great and pressing work laid upon the 
 Apostles : compare i Corinthians i. 17. How nobly it was 
 undertaken, we learn from the Book of Acts. To teach 
 the commands of Christ, was possible, for adults, only to 
 those wiUing to become His disciples. But in our day 
 this commission is performed by every Sunday-school 
 teacher who teaches the words of Jesus to the little ones 
 
46' Christian Baptism, 
 
 around him, even though they be not yet avowed servants 
 of Christ. The charge to baptize all the nations could be 
 obeyed by the Apostles, in the case of adults, only in those 
 willing to become His disciples. But the infant children 
 of Christians are under their parents' control. There is 
 therefore nothing to prevent their Baptism. And there is 
 nothing in the words of Christ to forbid it. Nor is there 
 in Mark xvi. i6. For Christ is speaking of those to whom 
 the Apostles would preach the Gospel. And, to them, the 
 only way of salvation was through the waters of Baptism. 
 Now we have seen that administration of the rite in infancy 
 involves no loss, and confers great spiritual gain. This 
 gain is to us a sufficient indication of the will of Christ. 
 We therefore bring our little ones to the sacred rite, 
 believing that by so doing we are obeying His command 
 in the form He would most approve. 
 
 Some will ask, If this is the mind of Christ, why is it 
 not plainly stated in the New Testament ? We can only 
 suggest one or two explanations. It was needful to con- 
 centrate attention, at the tremendous crisis caused by the 
 departure of Christ, upon the one work of gaining new 
 converts. We can conceive that, in order to give great 
 prominence to this. Baptism was at first administered only 
 as a badge of personal confession. Moreover, as already 
 said, the Gospel is a life developing outward forms from 
 its own inward activity, not a legal prescription. Be this 
 as it may, the force of this question as an objection is 
 completely met by considering the credentials of another 
 institution of Christianity. 
 
 We have no hint in the New Testament that the first 
 
Baptisin of Infants. 41 
 
 day of the week is to take the place of the seventh as the 
 divinely ordained weekly rest. That it is called the Lord's 
 Day, by no means proves this ; nor do the other scanty 
 references. Yet we keep the first day of the week as a 
 sacred rest in perfect confidence that we are both doing 
 the will of Christ and obeying the Fourth Commandment. 
 Why is this ? Because the great and manifest benefits 
 of the weekly rest assure us that the words spoken at 
 Sinai were designed for all ages and all nations ; because 
 the change from the seventh day to the first leaves these 
 benefits unimpaired, and embodies an important principle, 
 viz., the change of Covenant ; and because Christ paid to 
 the first day a silent honour greater than was ever paid 
 to the seventh day. Taken by themselves, these reasons 
 would hardly remove doubt. Viewed in the light of the 
 practice of the Church in all countries and during long 
 ages, they produce complete conviction. In other words, 
 we accept with perfect confidence from the Bible read in 
 the light of the practice of the early Church that which 
 we could not receive with like confidence from the Bible 
 alone. 
 
 It is worthy of note that in America, the fertile hotbed 
 of ecclesiastical curiosities, there are some who carry their 
 rejection of Infant Baptism to the logical result of returning 
 to Saturday as the weekly rest. In view of their folly, 
 let us beware lest, by clinging to the letter of Holy Scrip- 
 ture, we destroy its spirit. 
 
 Christ's reception of little ones, although it has no 
 express reference to Baptism, cannot here be passed 
 over in silence. For that so apparently trifling an act 
 
42 Christian Baptism. 
 
 was recorded in each of the synoptist Gospels, in Matthew 
 xix. 13-15, Mark x. 13-16, Luke xviii. 15-17, reveals its 
 spiritual significance. By bringing their infants, these 
 Jewish parents testified their faith that all human life 
 from its early beginning was an object of care to Christ, 
 that children were included in the purpose of mercy He 
 came to accomplish, and stand in a definite relation to the 
 New Covenant. By receiving and blessing their little 
 ones, Christ accepted and rewarded their faith. The same 
 faith and the same truth find expression in the rite of 
 Infant Baptism. In thus bringing our Httle ones to Christ 
 we do but imitate an action which He permitted and 
 defended. 
 
 To sum up. We hold fast the rite of Infant Baptism 
 because it embodies, in the best way we can conceive, a 
 truth of the highest importance underlying the kingdom 
 of God on earth in all its stages and needing ever to be 
 kept in view, viz., that from its earliest beginning and in 
 spite of anything man can do Christ claims for His own 
 all human life, and claims especially those who from 
 infancy are surrounded by godly influences. It is true 
 that the great spiritual gain derived from the formal 
 embodiment of this and other allied truths involves a 
 modification of the rite of Baptism as described in the 
 New Testament. But the modification is caused by 
 modified circumstances. It is in harmony with the 
 broad principles of the New Covenant. It contradicts no 
 command of Christ. And it has a counterpart in a similar 
 modification prescribed under the Old Covenant. More- 
 over, the modification is no work of ours. We do but 
 
Baptism of Infants. 43 
 
 follow the practice of a vast majority of the Churches of 
 Christ in all ages since the early dawn of Church history. 
 Moreover, all arguments against the Baptism of Infants 
 involve a principle which would overturn the polity of 
 the Baptist Churches. For the best that can be said for 
 a solitary pastorate is that it is a legitimate modification of 
 the altogether different Church-polity described in the New 
 Testament. The same principle would completely cut off 
 the Christian Day of Rest from the weekly rest prescribed 
 at Sinai. For the change of day is in no way commanded 
 in Holy Scripture. In view of all this, none shall forbid 
 us to bring our little ones to the sacred rite, thus present- 
 ing them to God as like ourselves needing a purity which 
 only He can give, " nothing doubting that He favourably 
 alloweth this godly work of ours in bringing this child to 
 His holy Baptism." 
 
 Note. — From the Jewish Gemara, not earlier than the second cen- 
 tury after Christ, we learn that converts from heathenism to Judaism 
 were not only circumcised but baptized. Of this there is apparently 
 no mention in any earlier writings. But the hostility between Jews 
 -and Christians makes it unlikely that after Christian Baptism had 
 become common a similar rite would be adopted by the Jews. On 
 the other hand, the bathing of proselytes was in complete harmony 
 with the principles of the Law of Moses. It is therefore more 
 probable than not that this undoubted Jewish practice was as early 
 as the days of Christ. Usually, though apparently not always, the 
 young children of such converts were also baptized, as undoubtedly 
 their boys were circumcised. This proselyte Baptism, if then prac- 
 tised, would naturally suggest the Baptism of the young children of 
 converts to Christianity. But we note that only children born before 
 their fathers' conversion received this Jewish Baptism. This differ- 
 ence from Christian Baptism, and the uncertainty about the date of 
 its origin, make the Baptism of proselytes an uncertain basis for 
 
44 Christian Baptism, 
 
 argument. Indisputably, the circumcision of the young children of 
 Jewish proselytes would raise a question about the position of the 
 children of converts to Christianity. If proselyte Baptism were then 
 practised, it would make this question still more urgent. And to 
 this question the Christian Baptism of Infants is both the logical 
 and the historical answer. 
 
 SECTION III. 
 
 BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 
 
 We come now to consider a doctrine accepted with 
 general consent in the Ancient Church from the third 
 century onwards, accepted now by the Roman CathoKc 
 Church, and asserted in the formularies of the Anglican 
 Church ; the doctrine commonly known as Baptismal 
 Regeneration. 
 
 As convenient examples of this doctrine, I shall quote 
 first an early Christian writer and then the Anglican 
 Prayer Book. 
 
 Augustine, in his treatise on Rebuke and Grace y ch. 1 8, 
 says : " God makes to be strangers to His kingdom, 
 whither He sends their parents, some of the sons of 
 His friends, i.e., of regenerated and good believers, who 
 go forth hence in childhood without Baptism ; for whom 
 He, in whose power are all things, might, if He would, 
 procure the grace of this font." We have similar teaching 
 in Grace and Freewill^ ch. 44 ; in Predestination of the 
 
Baptismal Regeneration. 45 
 
 Saints, ch. 24; and in 77?^ Gift of Perseverance, ch. 21. 
 Augustine teaches clearly that baptized infants dying in 
 infancy are saved, and that infants not baptized are lost. 
 Such teaching, few will now maintain. That it was once 
 generally and confidently believed, warns us that general 
 consent is no sure test of truth. 
 
 As a concise and clear statement of the doctrine I am 
 about to discuss, I shall quote the Catechism contained in 
 the Anglican Prayer Book. The candidate for confirmation 
 is there taught that in Baptism, which in nearly every 
 case was administered in infancy, he ^^ was made a member 
 of Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom 
 of heaven." In other words, the Anglican Church declares 
 that infants stand, after their Baptism, in a relation to 
 Christ, to God, and to the kingdom of heaven, which 
 was not theirs before the rite was administered. 
 
 In harmony with this teaching, in the order for the Public 
 Baptism of Infants, thanks are given to God that He has 
 been " pleased to regenerate this infant with " His " Holy 
 Spirit." This doctrine cannot, however, be fairly deduced 
 from the Atiicles of Religion. But it is not contradicted 
 in any part of the Prayer Book. 
 
 It is right to say that an eminent Anglican, Dr. Mozley, 
 in a very able and impartial work on The Baptismal Con- 
 troversy, Part ii., chaps. 2 and 3, endeavours to show that 
 the above statements, although literal in form, have not 
 necessarily a literal meaning ; and that they are to be taken 
 in a hypothetical sense and as a charitable supposition. 
 A hypothetical assertion is one which claims to be true, 
 not always, but sometimes, not absolutely, but only under 
 
46 Christian Baptism, 
 
 certain conditions. Unfortunately, Dr. Mozley does not 
 tell us the conditions on which the assertions of the 
 Catechism are true of baptized infants. He suggests that 
 these assertions are not inconsistent with the teaching of 
 Calvin that all persons are predestined by God, some to 
 eternal life, others to death. If this teaching be admitted, 
 the charitable supposition would be that the baptized 
 infant is one of the elect ; and the assertions of the 
 Prayer Book would be that elect infants are placed by 
 their Baptism in a new relation to God, and that in 
 Baptism the Holy Spirit works in them the change 
 described as Regeneration. Be this as it may, the 
 Anglican Catechism asserts plainly that, either always 
 or sometimes, infants are placed by their Baptism in a 
 new relation to Christ, to God, and to the kingdom of 
 heaven. To deny to the words before us this meaning, is 
 to destroy all definiteness of human language. 
 
 F. W. Robertson says (Sermon 4, Second Series) that 
 *' Baptism makes a child of God in the sense in which 
 coronation makes a king." But no one would say that on 
 his coronation day he was made king. The reign begins, 
 and is always reckoned, not from coronation but from 
 accession. Not a few kings whom all acknowledge to be 
 such were never crowned. But whatever may be the case 
 with crowned kings the words of the AngHcan Catechism 
 evidently mean that before the rite the baptized one was 
 not, and in the rite became, a child of God. 
 
 We now seek the meaning of the three phrases by 
 which the Catechism describes the new state entered at 
 Baptism. 
 
Baptismal Regeneration. 47 
 
 The second term, child of God^ and an equivalent term, 
 son of God, are frequent in the New Testament, almost 
 always in one definite sense, and always in senses closely 
 allied. And, because of its frequency there in this one 
 definite sense, it must be understood in the Catechism in 
 the same sense, unless we have plain indication to the 
 contrary. Certainly it will be so understood by the mass 
 of those who use the Catechism. The meaning of this 
 phrase in the New Testament is open to no doubt. 
 St. Paul teaches in Rom. viii. 14, that so many as are led 
 by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God, and that his 
 readers have received the Spirit of Adoption (or son-making), 
 that in Him they cry Abba, Father, and that the Spirit 
 Himself bears witness with their spirit that they are children 
 of God. The Apostle adds that if they are children, they 
 are also heirs, heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ. In 
 Galatians iii. 26, he teaches that his readers are sons of God 
 through faith, inasmuch as so many of them as have been 
 baptized for Christ have put on Christ. Not essentially 
 different is the sense of the same phrase in Matthew v. 9, 
 The peacemakers . . . shall be called sons of God; and in 
 verse 45, that ye may become sons of your Father in 
 Heaven. Throughout the New Testament the sons or 
 children of God are persons who occupy a relation to God 
 not shared by the wicked or the unbelieving. So especially 
 I John iii. 10: In this are manifest the children of God and 
 the children of the Devil. In Acts xvii. 28, when speaking 
 of the relation of the human race to God, St. Paul avoids 
 the phrases before us, and quotes the words of a 
 Greek poet : For we are His offspring. He avoids them 
 
48 Christian Baptism, 
 
 even when expounding this quotation : Being then an 
 offspring of God. The only exception to the statement 
 above is the prodigal son : Luke xv. 24. But we cannot 
 conceive that he became his father's son by any such rite 
 as Infant Baptism. 
 
 In harmony with the above, we learn from i Peter i. 3, 23 
 that the readers have been begotten or born again. And 
 from I John v. i, 4 we learn that all who believe that 
 Jesus is the Christ have been born of God, and that all 
 such overcome the world. They do not and cannot sin : 
 I John iii. 6, 9. 
 
 The phrase, member of Christy recalls St. Paul's teaching 
 that the Church is the Body of Christ, and that his readers 
 are members of that Body : so I Cor. xii. 27, Ye are the 
 body of Christ and severally members thereof Now the 
 writers of the New Testament always assume that all 
 Church-members are already justified by personal faith 
 and are by faith adopted into the family of God. Of 
 this, some clear proofs have just been given ; and many 
 others equally clear might be added. This assumption 
 by no means implies that there were in the Apostolic 
 Churches no false members. But these were left out of 
 sight. The writers charitably assume that all Church- 
 members are what they profess to be, viz., by personal 
 faith members of the family of God, members of the living 
 Body of which Christ is the Head, and in virtue of their 
 relation to God, sharers of the inheritance belonging to 
 Christ and to those whom He is not ashamed to call His 
 brethren. 
 
 Here then we find in the New Testament the three 
 
Baptismal Regeneration, 49 
 
 phrases used in the AngHcan Catechism. And we find 
 that both in the New Testament and in the Catechism the 
 three terms are synonymous. This careful and double 
 repetition proves clearly that the sense which these 
 phrases in the Catechism are intended to convey is the 
 sense conveyed by them in the New Testament, at least 
 so far as the same sense can be understood of believers 
 and of infants. In other words, the Anglican Church 
 teaches that in Baptism infants are placed in living union 
 with Christ, are received into the number of God's 
 adopted children, and obtain a right to a share in the 
 heritage of the brethren of Christ. 
 
 This plain teaching of her formularies is accepted and 
 defended by not a few writers of the Anglican Church. 
 As a good example of such writers I may refer to two 
 very popular and able works. Church Doctrine — Bible 
 Truth and The Second Adam and the New Birth, both 
 by M. F. Sadler. While rejecting as untrue and very 
 dangerous much of the teaching of these attractive 
 volumes, I cheerfully recognise their Christian tone and 
 uniform fairness. With respectful attention we ask Mr. 
 Sadler for proof of this remarkable doctrine so different 
 from the general tenor of the New Testament. We may 
 fairly demand clear evidence that it was taught either by 
 Christ or by His Apostles. 
 
 In chapter iv. of his work on The Second Adam, Mr. 
 Sadler endeavours to prove that infants are '^ the proper 
 recipients" of the Sacrament of Baptism. This I have 
 already myself attempted to prove. But the argument of 
 Mr. Sadler seems to me most unsatisfactory. Possibly 
 
 4 
 
50 Christian Baptism. 
 
 the defectiveness of this proof attracts less attention 
 because almost all his readers have already accepted his 
 conclusion. 
 
 The title of chapter vi. asserts that " the Apostles 
 hold all baptized Christians to be members of Christ." 
 This is proved by many quotations from the Epistles 
 of St. Paul, St. John, and St. Peter. These proofs, with 
 certain small exceptions, I heartily endorse. Undoubt- 
 edly the Apostles assume that their readers are members 
 of Christ, children of God, and inheritors of the kingdom 
 of heaven. They assume also, as Mr. Sadler properly 
 shows, that their readers entered this state of blessed 
 privilege through the gate of Baptism. 
 
 Mr. Sadler then goes on to assume silently that whatever 
 is said in the New Testament about Baptism and baptized 
 persons is true also of baptized infants. He assumes 
 this in complete unconsciousness of the absolute difference 
 between a Baptism which is a personal confession of faith 
 and another Baptism in which the baptized one does 
 nothing whatever. This oversight vitiates his entire 
 argument. For the difference between the two rites 
 which Mr. Sadler confounds is fundamental. To teach 
 that to a heathen or a Jew Baptism is the only way 
 into the blessings of the New Covenant, is in complete 
 accord with the broad principles of that Covenant. 
 For faith in Christ is the one conspicuous condition 
 of all the blessings of the Covenant, and Christ re- 
 quired from His servants confession of their faith 
 and ordained Baptism as the formal mode of con- 
 fession. But to teach that an infant is brought into a 
 
Baptismal Regeneration, 51 
 
 new relation to God, or undergoes an inward change, 
 by means of an outward rite of which he is utterly uncon- 
 scious, is to introduce an element altogether alien to the 
 whole tenor of the Gospel. For such teaching we must 
 have plain proof. Certainly it is not proved, or in any 
 way supported, by assertions of Holy Scripture about the 
 spiritual effect of the Baptism of believers. 
 
 The teaching I now combat would break all analogy 
 between the two Sacraments. For even the Roman 
 Church admits that the benefits received from the Lord's 
 Supper depend upon, and are in proportion to, the faith 
 of the receiver. A favourite Roman Catholic argument 
 is that just as a dead body cannot receive nutriment from 
 bread so a lifeless soul cannot receive nourishment from 
 the body and blood of Christ. Certainly each one comes 
 of his own free choice to receive the sacred symbols. 
 But the infant is carried to the font without any choice 
 of his own, and is wholly unconscious of the rite ad- 
 ministered. Consequently, no appeal, in proof of the 
 doctrine before us, can be made to the nature of a 
 sacrament as such. For the blessings derived from the 
 only other sacrament ordained by Christ are indisputably 
 contingent on the faith of the receiver. 
 
 The teaching I am endeavouring to disprove is far 
 more momentous in its results than at first sight appears. 
 If blessings wrought by the Spirit of God follow Baptism 
 as such, they do so by whomsoever the rite is administered, 
 even though in an utterly frivolous spirit, or by a wicked 
 man. For if the validity of Baptism depends on the 
 devoutness or the character of the person baptizing, the 
 
52 Christian Baptism, 
 
 infant baptized cannot in future years use with any con- 
 fidence the language put into his hps by the Catechism. 
 It follows then from the teaching before us that the waving 
 of the dripping hand of a thoughtless or bad man works 
 invariably, if a certain ritual be followed, in an unconscious 
 infant an actual spiritual change and places that infant in 
 a new relation to Christ, to God, and to the kingdom 
 of heaven. This is salvation, not by faith, but by leger- 
 demain. 
 
 It is true that the sacrifices of the Old Covenant were 
 sometimes offered, under God's appointment, by bad 
 priests. But we are never taught that these sacrifices 
 were channels of direct spiritual blessing in the sense 
 asserted by the Anglican Catechism about the rite of 
 Infant Baptism. Moreover, God made Himself in some 
 sense responsible for this abuse by ordaining, in the 
 preparatory and imperfect Covenant, that Aaron's sons, 
 without reference to their character, and they only, should 
 perform the rites of the Tabernacle. But we have no 
 such express ordinance in the New Covenant. The 
 doctrine before us, like the errors in Galatia, tends to 
 bring down the New Covenant with its greater blessings 
 to the level of the Old. 
 
 Nor is this all. If the hands of the man who performs 
 the rite of Baptism convey, by their simple movement, 
 spiritual blessing so great, we naturally ask. Whose are 
 the hands to which this mysterious power is given ? It 
 is true that even the Roman Church admits as valid in 
 cases of necessity Baptism by a lay-man or by a woman. 
 But such cases are evidently exceptional. The power to 
 
Baptismal Regeneration, 53 
 
 distribute the gift of eternal life cannot be universal. It 
 must be derived from a competent authority. At once 
 come in questions of ecclesiastical pedigree. And these 
 raise questionings about the right of the Anglican Church 
 in the sixteenth century to rebel, under compulsion of 
 Henry and Elizabeth, against an ecclesiastical authority 
 v^^hich it had long recognised and which traces its descent 
 from the Apostles of Christ. No wonder that many, 
 claiming this mysterious prerogative, have felt bound in 
 consistency themselves to bow to the authority of the 
 Church of Rome. An old teacher once said (Galatians 
 V. 3) very earnestly to some Gentiles who were on the 
 eve of accepting the rite of circumcision that they were 
 thereby binding themselves to keep the whole Mosaic 
 Law. And I am compelled mournfully to believe that 
 they who teach that any spiritual blessing, be it an inward 
 work of the Holy Spirit or a changed relation to God, 
 follows invariably the administration of Baptism to an 
 unconscious infant, are unwittingly rivetting the fetters of 
 spiritual bondage. 
 
 The above protest by no means implies that no spiritual 
 blessing to the infant accompanies Baptism. Far be it 
 from me to attempt to limit the mercy of God towards a 
 little one presented to Him by the believing hands of 
 loving parents, hands held up by the faith and prayer of 
 the people of God. For, to give blessing to one person in 
 answer to the believing prayer of others, is in complete 
 harmony with principles underlying the whole administra- 
 tion of the kingdom of God. My protest is directed only 
 against the teaching that spiritual blessing follows invari- 
 
54 Christian Baptism. 
 
 ably the performance of an outward rite, teaching which 
 I have shown to be involved in the formulary quoted. 
 
 One thing all will admit. For teaching so remarkable, 
 so unlike everything else in the New Covenant, and 
 involving results so serious, we may fairly claim plain 
 proof. What is the proof adduced ? Simply the teach- 
 ing of the New Testament about the Baptism of Believers. 
 In order to prove that certain blessings are conveyed by 
 Baptism to an unconscious infant, we are reminded that 
 in the New Testament similar blessings are said to be 
 obtained by faith, that Christ required this faith to be 
 confessed by reception of the rite of Baptism, and that 
 consequently Baptism is in a few places spoken of as a 
 condition or means of salvation. Surely never was a 
 great and unstable and dangerous structure erected on so 
 untrustworthy a foundation. That this doctrine receives 
 no support from the analogy of the Lord's Supper, I have 
 already shown. There is not one word in the New 
 Testament which even suggests in the slightest degree 
 that spiritual blessings are, or may be, conveyed to an 
 infant by a rite of which he is utterly unconscious. And 
 the suggestion contradicts the broad principles underlying 
 the kingdom of God. 
 
 The only appeal remaining is to the general consent of 
 the Churches in the third century. But this I cannot, 
 in so serious a matter, accept as decisive. For I have 
 no proof that the Churches, even when unanimous, were 
 infallible. Moreover, to receive their judgment as deci- 
 sive, would compel me to admit other doctrines against 
 which my intellectual and moral and spiritual nature 
 
Baptismal Regeneration. 55 
 
 revolts. I have no reliable witnesses of the teaching of 
 Christ and His Apostles except the Books of the New 
 Testament. And these I find sufficient to remove all 
 doubt in all matters of importance. 
 
 In a recent work on Regeneration in Baptism^ by G. 
 E. O'Brien, we are told on page 160, about infants who 
 die unbaptized, *^So far as we can judge from the teaching 
 of the Revealed Word of God, we must regard them as 
 lost. Yet, O God, have mercy on their poor little souls, 
 for Jesus' sake ! . . . As, therefore, in cases of wilful 
 neglect the parent must blame himself for the starvation 
 of his child's body ; under similar circumstances he must 
 blame himself, and not God, for the loss of his child's 
 soul." In other words, Mr. O'Brien follows, timidly and 
 at a distance, in the light of the nineteenth century, the 
 terrible teaching of Augustine quoted above. Let us take 
 warning from this extreme case. 
 
 The results attained in this section are only negative. 
 The prevalence and prestige of the doctrine of Baptismal 
 Regeneration made disproof of it needful before any 
 attempt to build up positive truth. The real significance 
 and benefit of the Baptism of Infants will be discussed 
 in the next section. 
 
56 Christian Baptism, 
 
 SECTION IV, 
 
 THE SIGNIFICANCE AND BENEFIT OF THE BAPTISM 
 OF INFANTS. 
 
 The absence of any express reference in the New Testa- 
 ment compels us to seek for the significance of Infant 
 Baptism in the broad principles of the New Covenant 
 viewed in the light of all that we know about the spiritual 
 position of the children of Christian parents. To this 
 source of information we turn with the more confidence 
 because we saw in Section i. that the whole teaching of 
 the New Testament about the Baptism of Believers is a 
 logical development of the principles of the New Covenant 
 in the light of Christ's original commission to baptize. In 
 other words, the Baptism of Believers does not stand alone, 
 but is an organic outgrowth of the essential principles of 
 the New Covenant. Such must also be the Baptism of 
 Infants. 
 
 Just as in the Gospel Revealed Truth is presented to 
 the mind in audible words, so in the two Christian Sacra- 
 ments and in the ritual of the Old Covenant Truth is 
 presented to the mind in visible symbols. Very important 
 is this double presentation. The Word explains the Sym- 
 bol : the Symbol, which is more easily preserved than is 
 abstract teaching, calls attention to the explanatory Word. 
 Each of the two Sacraments embodies the historic fact that 
 God has come near to man and has entered into Covenant 
 
Significance and Benefit. 57' 
 
 with him. The Lord's Supper teaches in silent eloquence 
 that this Covenant rests mysteriously upon the blood and 
 death of Christ. Baptism teaches that in the Covenant 
 God requires and imparts a purity beyond man's own reach. 
 The Baptism of Infants teaches that even the innocence of 
 childhood needs purification at the hands of God, that the 
 children of Christian parents are from their earliest days 
 encompassed by the New Covenant, and that, whatever 
 their future action or choice may be, they will be treated 
 by God on the principles of the Covenant. In other 
 words, Christ claims our little ones for His own : and 
 from that claim their subsequent action, be it what it may, 
 cannot release them. 
 
 We now see that the children of Christian parents stand 
 in a very definite and solemn relation to the New Cove- 
 nant. This relation involves a threefold responsibilit}^ 
 resting upon baptized children, upon the parents who 
 brought them to Baptism, and upon the Church and the 
 pastor who administered the sacred rite. If then Baptism 
 be a monument of the Covenant, it must be a monument 
 of this threefold responsibility. 
 
 Each administration of Infant Baptism reminds us that, 
 before we were born, for us had been shed the blood of 
 the Covenant ; that around our opening intelligence shone 
 the light of the Gospel, which must be to us either the 
 Light of Life or a consuming fire ; and that from loving 
 lips in early days we heard the story of the cross, which 
 must be to us either an eternal song or eternal shame. 
 Far different our lot, had we been born in the darkness 
 of heathendom. This difference with its tremendous 
 
58 Christian Baptism, 
 
 responsibilities, the Sacrament we are considering sets 
 before the eyes of all those present. 
 
 Even where parental influence is defective or bad, this 
 defect does not destroy the responsibility just mentioned. 
 For the Gospel exerts a mighty influence even beyond the 
 immediate surroundings of those loyal to Christ. Certainly 
 all children taken to Christian worship or instruction hear 
 the words of Christ. And in proportion to the influences 
 thus brought to bear upon them is their responsibility. 
 
 The Baptism of Infants also embodies a responsibility 
 resting upon their parents. The constant intercourse at 
 home, the dependence of the child upon his parents for 
 the necessaries and the comforts of life, and the love 
 evoked by parental care, give to parents an influence 
 altogether unique, and a unique opportunity of leading 
 their little ones to bow to Christ. To use to the utter- 
 most this opportunity, every Christian parent is bound 
 b}^ his loyalty to Christ, by his love to his children, and 
 by the solemn responsibilities resting upon them. Indeed 
 we cannot doubt that the training of children to serve the 
 God of their fathers was one chief aim of the institution 
 by the Creator of the relation of parents and children. 
 The evident value of such training reveals the sacredness 
 of family life. 
 
 Notice carefully that these responsibilities are not 
 created, or even increased, nor is the child's relation to 
 the New Covenant in any way altered, by Baptism. For 
 even if the parents refused to bring their little one to the 
 sacred rite, they would still be bound, under an obhgation 
 most solemn, to use all their powers to win him for Christ, 
 
Significance and Benefit. 59 
 
 and the child would in subsequent years be bound, with 
 an obligation proportionate to his reHgious advantages, to 
 accept Christ. By his birth under Christian influences he 
 is already one oi the sons of the Covenant : Acts iii. 25. 
 
 A similar, though less, responsibility rests upon the 
 Church to which the parents belong, and especially on 
 Christian pastors. The susceptibility of childhood affords 
 an opportunity, soon to pass away, of winning children 
 for Christ. And this opportunity creates a corresponding 
 responsibility. Every Church and every pastor, and in 
 some measure every Christian man and woman, is bound 
 to do all he can to bring to Christ all the children within 
 reach of his influence. 
 
 In this case we notice that when parents bring an infant 
 to Baptism they thus claim for him in due time religious 
 oversight by the pastor and a share of the religious 
 advantages afforded by the Church. This opens to the 
 pastor and to the Church an opportunity of doing good 
 to the child, and thus lays upon them increased respon- 
 sibility. Children brought to us in infancy have thus a 
 special claim upon our best attention. 
 
 Such then is the significance of the Baptism of Infants. 
 It is an embodiment in symbolic form of the New Cove- 
 nant, of the infant's relation to it, and of the various 
 responsibilities involved in that relation. And the embodi- 
 ment is the most suitable we can conceive. No one asked 
 the unconscious infant whether he would be baptized. 
 Nor did God ask him whether he would be born in a 
 Christian family. Yet by the responsibilities following 
 inevitably the surroundings of his birth he will be judged. 
 
6o Christian Baptism. 
 
 Unstained as he is by personal sin, he yet needs a purifi- 
 cation which only God can give, as time will soon show. 
 But before the innate tendencies to evil reveal themselves, 
 this holy Sacrament declares that God has already provided 
 the needed purification. 
 
 The benefits of the Baptism of Infants are derived from 
 the truths therein embodied. For the presentation of truth 
 is God's chosen means of saving men. And the benefit of 
 the rite is in proportion to the value of the truth therein 
 set forth. In the Gospel, the Truth operates for man's 
 salvation through a spoken word : in the Sacraments the 
 same truth operates through visible symbols. And in 
 each case the Truth is the channel through which the 
 Spirit of God breathes into man, and nourishes in him, 
 divine life. For He is the Spirit of the Truth : John xiv. 
 17. Without His presence even the Truth is powerless 
 and dead. But, in order to become a channel of blessing, 
 the Truth must come into contact with man's thought, 
 and evoke faith. It does this, by God's ordinance, through 
 the preached and the symbolic Word, which thus become 
 to us the hand of God. This presence of the Spirit 
 operating through audible and visible forms is the great 
 mystery underlying both the Gospel and the two Sacra- 
 ments. In each case the abiding result depends upon the 
 reception by faith of the truth thus presented. In the 
 Baptism of Infants, inasmuch as the baptized one is 
 incapable of faith, the immediate benefit is for the parents, 
 for the pastor baptizing, and for the congregation present 
 at the rite. But to these the truth set forth is of the 
 highest importance. To those baptized in infancy the 
 
Significance and Benefit, 6i 
 
 spiritual blessings of the Covenant can be appropriated 
 only by subsequent personal faith. The early admini- 
 stration of the rite teaches that these blessings are waiting 
 for the child's acceptance : and that from infancy Christ 
 claims him. 
 
 Inasmuch as the Truth is the divinely appointed 
 channel through which the Spirit of God imparts spiritual 
 life and nourishment, and Baptism is a divinely appointed 
 mode of presenting the Truth, we need not hesitate to 
 say that Baptism is not only a declaration of Truth but 
 is also a divinely ordained channel through which God 
 bestows spiritual blessing. But all analogy assures us 
 that the immediate blessing is only for those who with 
 intelligent faith embrace the Truth thus presented. Nor 
 need the blessing be limited to the time of administration. 
 Just as the Gospel is frequently operative long after the 
 preacher's voice is silent, so the Sacrament of Baptism, 
 administered in the Church at intervals, to infants or to 
 believers, is an abiding monument of certain great Truths 
 fruitful in blessing even when their embodiment is not 
 actually in view. 
 
 That Baptism conveys to infants any immediate 
 spiritual blessing, we have no proof or presumption in 
 the New Testament. For the blessings there connected 
 with Baptism are contingent on faith, the one condition 
 of all the blessings of the New Covenant. And infants 
 are incapable of faith. Moreover, that actual spiritual 
 benefits follow invariably the administration of a sacred 
 rite, is without analogy in the known Kingdom of God. 
 
 To sum up. In a convert to Christianity, Baptism 
 
62 Christian Baptism, 
 
 is a formal confession of faith in Christ in a mode specially 
 prescribed by Him. To the baptized convert, therefore, 
 in some sense all the blessings of salvation are results 
 of Baptism. For without it they could not, in ordinary 
 cases, have been His. The peculiar form of the rite is 
 also a visible presentation of important truth, viz., that in 
 Christ God has come near to man in order to give him 
 a purity beyond his reach yet absolutely needful for 
 entrance into heaven. The truth thus presented is, to 
 those who apprehend it by faith, the chosen channel 
 through which the Holy Spirit conveys to men spiritual 
 nutriment and hfe. 
 
 By those baptized in infancy these blessings in their 
 fulness are obtained only by subsequent faith and con- 
 fession. But the rite administered in infancy proclaims 
 to all those who have heard the Gospel that the blessings 
 of the New Covenant, symbolized in their Baptism, are 
 waiting for their acceptance, and that Christ claims for 
 Himself human Hfe from its earliest dawn. The pre- 
 sentation of this important truth, and the blessings it 
 imparts to those who rightly receive it, are the immediate 
 and inestimable benefits of Infant Baptism. 
 
Baptized C/nldreiz, 63 
 
 SECTION V. 
 
 THE RELATION OF BAPTIZED CHILDREN TO THE 
 CHURCH 
 
 Before discussing the above question we shall say a few 
 more words about the relation of the children of godly 
 parents to the New Covenant. 
 
 That this relation is very real and definite, we have 
 already seen. For children brought up under Christian 
 influences, will be saved or lost according as they accept 
 or reject the Gospel of Christ. They are in the Covenant 
 in the sense that they will be judged on the principles 
 therein set forth ; and thus differ greatly from many who 
 pass through life without having heard the name of Christ, 
 and who will therefore be judged on other principles. 
 And we have seen that their responsibility is in propor- 
 tion to their religious advantages. 
 
 But we have no reason to suppose that the rite of 
 Baptism changes the infant's relation to the Covenant. 
 For that relation is determined by his nearness to the 
 Gospel of Christ. And the entire teaching of the New 
 Testament about Baptism is valid only of those whose 
 Baptism is a confession of personal faith. We therefore 
 cannot doubt that the child of a pious Baptist belongs 
 as much to Christ, and is as near to Christ, as a child 
 presented to God in Baptism. Yet, if the argument of 
 this treatise be correct, we may well believe that the 
 Baptist Churches are losers through their failure rightly 
 
64 Christian Baptism, 
 
 to interpret the mind of the Spirit of God. Admitting 
 this, we may affirm that Baptism does not in itself alter 
 an infant's relation to God, but simply sets forth a most 
 solemn relation already existing in virtue of his birth 
 under Christian influences. The actual spiritual benefit 
 of the rite is for those who intelligently, and with faith, 
 apprehend its significance. 
 
 Our answer to the main question now before us 
 depends upon our conception of the Church. This we 
 will now consider. 
 
 The writers of the Epistles of the New Testament 
 always assume that their readers have personal spiritual 
 life. St. Paul declares that his readers at Corinth have 
 been justified, that those at Rome have been made free from 
 sin, and have become servants to God, that those in Galatia 
 are all sons of God through faith : i Corinthians vi. 11, 
 Romans vi. 22, Galatians iii. 26. Yet some of these 
 were babes in Christ, and their conduct open to severe 
 rebuke. To others St. John writes because their sins are 
 forgiven, and says that he and they know that they have 
 passed out of death into life: I John ii. 12, iii. 14; com- 
 pare iii. 24, iv. 13, v. 19. This assumption implies 
 clearly that the members of the Apostolic Churches pro- 
 fessed to have personal and saving faith in Christ. But 
 it does not imply that there were no false or unworthy 
 members. Any such are left out of sight. The Apostles 
 charitably assume that their readers are what they pro- 
 fess to be. But their language is inexplicable had there 
 not been a profession of personal faith. We may there- 
 fore describe the Apostolic Churches as the company in 
 
Baptized Children. 65 
 
 any one place of the professed servants of Christ, these 
 being united, by the ordinance of Christ, for mutual pro- 
 tection and help in His service. And to maintain in 
 our day this conception of the Church is of the highest 
 importance. For the Church lives by the personal faith 
 and life of each of its members. 
 
 Of the Church thus understood, infants cannot, in the 
 full sense, be members. They who have not yet entered 
 the battle of life do not occupy the position of those who 
 have already gained a most important victory. Born as 
 they are under the light of the Gospel, they can enter 
 the company of the servants of Christ only through the 
 gate of personal faith and confession. To overlook this 
 essential difference, cannot raise the little ones: it will 
 inevitably lower our conception of the Church. And, if 
 it obscure the absolute need, in our children, of personal 
 faith and confession, it will greatly injure them. 
 
 That infants do not occupy the position of professed 
 believers, is evident also from the fact that to number 
 them with such would make all enumeration of members 
 meaningless. I have heard of ministers enrolling their 
 infants as members of the Church. Were these infants 
 counted as members ? If so, here we have rehef from 
 our frequent regrets that our numbers increase so slowly, 
 or occasionally recede. Count baptized infants, and at 
 once we have an immense ingathering ; and our number- 
 ing becomes ridiculous. Unimportant as enumeration 
 may seem, the impossibility and absurdity of counting 
 baptized infants as Church members proves that they are 
 not in the full sense members of the Church. Baptism 
 
 5 
 
66 Christian Baptism, 
 
 does not place them where, in the Apostolic Churches, it 
 placed believers. 
 
 This proof is confirmed by serious practical difficulties 
 which surround any attempt to reckon baptized infants 
 as Church members. Whose children are to be thus 
 reckoned ? We baptize without hesitation infant children 
 of any parents who are accustomed to join with us in 
 pubHc worship, even though not themselves members of 
 the Church. That we are right in doing so, I shall soon 
 endeavour to show. Would it not be incongruous to 
 give to infants, on the ground that they are children of 
 Christian parents, a position not occupied by their parents ? 
 Or does any one seriously propose that we cease to 
 baptize such children ? 
 
 Once more. If we reckon infants as members of the 
 Church, how long are we to retain those who in boyhood 
 show no definite signs of spiritual life ? All experience 
 tells us that such cases will arise. At what age shall we 
 cross out their names ? At ten years ? at fourteen ? at 
 eighteen ? By what process are they to be removed from 
 the register ? How serious the dilemma thus needlessly 
 forced upon the Church ! Hereditary Church-membership 
 is apt to become an eclipse of personal spiritual life. 
 
 These difficulties, which seem at first sight purely 
 ecclesiastical, reveal the wide difference between the 
 position of baptized infants and that of professed believers 
 in Christ. This difference forbids us to accept the former 
 as, in the full sense, members of the Church. 
 
 This by no means implies that infants are away from 
 Christ. He who of old took them in His arms still holds 
 
Baptized Children.* 67 
 
 them in His embrace. From His embrace, armed with 
 His blessing, they go forth into the battle of Hfe. But 
 victory is only for those who confess Christ. The king- 
 dom of God and the Church are by no means conterminous. 
 The latter includes, not necessarily all those on whom God 
 smiles, but those only who have ranged themselves under 
 the banner of Christ. 
 
 Moreover, the children of Christian parents and of 
 Christian congregations and schools, although not yet 
 members of the Church, occupy already a very close 
 relation to it. They are an outer court separated from 
 the inner sanctuary only by the gate of personal con- 
 fession. Very soon they must either pass through that 
 gate or wander away into the world. To-day they are 
 within reach of our influence : in a few years it will be 
 displaced by the distracting influences of the world 
 around. The value and the shortness of this opportunity 
 lay upon the Christian pastor a heavy responsibility. 
 The outer court is as much a part of his charge as is the 
 Church itself. He is bound to use every effort to lead the 
 little ones, as early as possible, from the outer court into 
 the sanctuary of personal confession. 
 
 We notice, however, that Baptism is not the gate into 
 this outer court as was the Baptism of believers the gate 
 into the Apostohc Churches. For they were brought into 
 it, not by Baptism, but by the light of the Gospel which 
 shone around their cradle. Even unbaptized children in 
 our congregations are in this outer court as much as those 
 baptized. Surely no one will deny that all have an equal 
 claim en the pastor's care. His responsibility is limited 
 
68 Christian Baptis77t, 
 
 only by his influence and opportunities. We are bound 
 to do all we can to save all within our reach, baptized or 
 unbaptized. By baptizing infants we do not place them 
 in the outer court, but recognise their birthright place in 
 it. Just so circumcision did not make a babe the child of 
 Abraham but recognised him as already such. 
 
 We saw in Section ii. that Infant Baptism lacks one 
 all-important element present in the Baptism of a believer, 
 viz., personal confession. We baptize infants in confident 
 hope that in due time this lack will be supplied. The 
 Church is therefore bound to provide for those baptized in 
 infancy a suitable opportunity of personal and formal 
 confession, and to keep before them the lack which only 
 they can supply. Unless it be supplied by their own 
 personal confession, their Baptism will remain for ever 
 incomplete; a monument of unfaithfulness to a high 
 vocation. 
 
 We can now give a partial answer to the question before 
 us. Certainly, baptized infants are not, in the full sense, 
 members of the Church. For the Church is the company of 
 the professed followers of Christ. On the other hand, the 
 children of Christian parents stand in a most intimate rela- 
 tion to the Church, in a position which gives them, equally 
 with its full members, a claim to the pastor's care. The 
 little ones occupy a court of their own. And, without 
 doubt, their court belongs to the Temple. The pastor is 
 bound to do all he can to make it to each of them a vesti- 
 bule to the inner court of personal confession. If we keep 
 all this in view it matters little whether the name Church 
 is given to the outer, or only to the inner court. But 
 
Baptized Children. 69 
 
 in either case we must keep in mind the claims of the 
 little ones and their need of personal faith and con- 
 fession. 
 
 Ought there then to be lists of those baptized in infancy? 
 The baptismal register is already such a list. Possibly 
 a column might be left to receive in due time a record 
 that the baptized one has joined the Church. But the 
 many migrations of modern life would make the filling up 
 of such a column very uncertain ; and render baptismal 
 registers a very awkward basis for evangelical work 
 among the young. 
 
 A more practicable method lies ready to our hand. Let 
 every pastor look upon all children in his congregation 
 and schools as a special charge for which he is responsible 
 to Christ. For his own use, let him as far as possible 
 obtain lists of them. Let him devise, at frequent intervals, 
 special services for the young ; and make special effort to 
 bring to these services every child in his congregation, so 
 that none keep away except by their own refusal. At 
 such services, let him set forth plainly the solemn respon- 
 sibilities embodied in Christian Baptism ; and use every 
 persuasion to draw the young to Christ. And let there 
 be formed suitable classes which may be a pathway to 
 full communion with the Church. On these lines, which 
 are open to no question, we shall best discharge the solemn 
 obligation recognised in our Baptism of Infants. 
 
 Whose children ought we to baptize ? If Baptism 
 admitted infants into the Church, we should hesitate to 
 baptize children of parents not themselves members of it. 
 Such hesitation is needless. That an infant is brought 
 
yo Christian Baptism. 
 
 for Baptism, proves that he is born under Christian in- 
 fluences, and under the privileges and responsibilities of 
 the New Covenant. We therefore erect over him the 
 monument of the Covenant. By bringing him, the parents 
 recognise their obligation to train him for Christ, and give 
 to the pastor a valuable opportunity of pressing upon them 
 the greatness of their responsibility. But we have no 
 right to claim that the little one be brought up in our own 
 communion. For Baptism is a rite, not of any one Church, 
 but of the Universal Church. At the same time, by bring- 
 ing him to us, the parents claim for their little one our 
 pastoral care. By receiving him we acknowledge the 
 obligation thus laid upon us to do all we can to lead him 
 to Christ and into His Church. And the best way of 
 doing this known to us is to gather him into our own 
 section of the Church. This therefore is our definite aim 
 and hope for all infants whom we baptize. 
 
 To sum up. Baptism is a divinely erected monument 
 of the New Covenant, and specifically of the truth that in 
 Christ God requires, and waits to impart, a purity other- 
 wise unattainable. In the case of heathens and Jews, the 
 monument can be erected only on those who personally 
 accept the Covenant. It is to them a mode of confession, 
 and, as commanded by Christ, a condition, in ordinary 
 circumstances, of salvation. But infants are under the 
 control of their parents. And parental influence places 
 the children of Christians in a very definite relation to the 
 New Covenant. From their parents they will hear the 
 Gospel : and by that Gospel they will be judged. This is 
 
Baptized Chilaren, 71 
 
 to the children an infinite privilege, and to children and 
 parents involves solemn responsibility. Of this relation 
 and privilege and responsibility, the Baptism of Infants is 
 a formal recognition. The benefit of the rite is the pre- 
 sentation of the truths therein embodied. For these truths 
 are a channel through which the Spirit of God imparts 
 spiritual life. The actual gain is in proportion as the 
 truths are apprehended by the persons present. But we 
 have no hint that the rite alters in any way the infant's 
 relation to God or to the Covenant, or works in him any 
 immediate spiritual change. For the blessings connected 
 in the New Testament with the Baptism of believers cannot 
 be predicated of infants, who are incapable of faith, the 
 unique condition of all the blessings of the New Covenant. 
 We have seen that infants cannot be reckoned as members 
 of the Church in the same full sense as are those who have 
 entered it by personal confession ; but that children under 
 Christian influences form an outer court designed to be 
 the pathway to the inner sanctuary of personal confession, 
 and claiming in equal measure the care of the Christian 
 pastor. In other words, by their birth under Christian 
 
 INFLUENCES, THE CHILDREN OF CHRISTIAN PARENTS ARE 
 PLACED ON THE THRESHOLD OF THE ChURCH, IN A POSITION 
 WHICH COMPELS THEM EITHER TO CROSS THE THRESHOLD OR 
 TO TURN THEIR BACK UPON IT. Of THIS SOLEMN POSITION, 
 
 THE Baptism of Infants is a formal recognition. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 REFERENCES TO BAPTISM IN EARLY CHRISIIAN 
 WRITERS. 
 
 In chap. xi. of the so-called Epistle of Barnabas, a document 
 quoted several times by Clement of Alexandria as written by the 
 companion of St. Paul, but written probably by an unknown writer 
 at the close of the first century, we read : " Let us inquire whether 
 the Lord took care to make a declaration beforehand about the 
 water and about the cross. About the water it is written touching 
 Israel how they will not receive the baptism which bears forgiveness 
 of sins but will build one up for themselves," quoting Jeremiah ii. 13. 
 " Then what says he ? * There was a river flowing on the right, and 
 beautiful trees were growing up from it, and whoever may eat of 
 them will live for ever.' This means that we go down into the 
 water full of sins and defilement, and we go up bearing fruit in our 
 heart, having in our spirit fear and hope towards Christ." 
 
 In the recently discovered Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, 
 a document of about the same age, in chap, vii., we read, "About 
 Baptism. Thus baptize. Having said beforehand all these things, 
 baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
 Spirit, in fresh water. But if thou hast not fresh water, baptize in 
 other water. And if thou canst not baptize in cold water, then do so 
 in warm. And if thou hast neither, {i.e., in sufficient quantity,) pour 
 water three times on the head, for the name of Father and Son 
 and Holy Spirit. Before the Baptism let the Baptizer and the 
 person receiving Baptism fast, and any others who can. But com- 
 mand the person receiving Baptism to fast one or two days." 
 
 Ignatius, writing at the beginning of the second century to the 
 Smyrnans, in chap. viii. says : " It is not lawful apart from the 
 bishop either to baptize or to hold a lovefeast." 
 
 In the Shepherd of Hermas, written probably at the middle of the 
 second century, we read in Vision iii. chap. 3 : " Hear then why the 
 
Early Christian Writers, 'j'^ 
 
 tower is built over waters ; because your life was saved and will be 
 saved by means of water. And the tower is founded upon the word 
 of the almighty and glorious Name and is held firm by the unseen 
 power of the Father," 
 
 So in Co?n?na?idme7tt iv., chap. 3: "I heard, sir, from some 
 teachers that there is no other kind of repentance except that when 
 we went down into the water and received forgiveness of our 
 former sins. He says to me, Thou hast heard well : for it is so. 
 For he who has received forgiveness of sins must needs sin no more 
 but dwell in purity." 
 
 So in Similitude ix. chap. 16: "Why did the stones go up out of 
 the deep, and were put to the building of the tower, bearing these 
 spirits ? They must of necessity go up through water in order to be 
 made alive. For unless they laid aside the deadness of their life 
 they could not in any other way enter into the Kingdom of God. 
 Therefore also those who were as'eep received the seal of the Son 
 of God. For before a man bears the name of the Son of God he is 
 dead : but when he has received the seal he puts away his deadness 
 and receives life. The seal then is the water. They go down 
 therefore into the water dead, and go up living. Also to those 
 men therefore this seal was preached and they made use of it, in 
 order that they might enter into the Kingdom of God." 
 
 About the same time Justin writes in his First Apology, chap. Ixi. : 
 *' We will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves 
 to God when we had been made new through Christ, lest if we 
 passed by this we should seem to be somewhat unfair in our 
 exposition. So many as are persuaded and believe that the things 
 taught and said by us are true, and promise to be able to live 
 accordingly, are taught to pray and ask from God, with fasting, 
 forgiveness of their former sins, we praynig and fasting with them. 
 Then they are led by us where there is water and are born again in 
 the way of new birth by wliich also we ourselves were born again. 
 For in the name of God, the Father and Master of all things, and 
 of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then 
 receive the washing * in water. For Christ also said, ' Except ye 
 be born again ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.' . . . 
 And from this we have learnt from the Apostles this reason. Since 
 we received our first birth by necessity, without knowing it, by our 
 
 * Same word in Ephesians v. 26 ; Titus iii. 5. 
 
74 ' Christian Baptis7n, 
 
 parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and 
 wicked training, in order that we may not remain children of necessity 
 or of ignorance but may become children of choice and knowledge, 
 and may obtain in the water forgiveness of sins formerly com- 
 mitted, there is pronounced over him who wishes to be born again 
 and has repented of his former sins in the name of God, the Father 
 and Master of all things ; they who lead to the laver * (or washing) 
 him that is to be washed, saying over him this name only. . . . And 
 this washing is called enlightenment, since they who learn these 
 things receive light in their understanding." 
 
 So in the Dialogue with Trypho, chap. xiv. : " What is the use of 
 that Baptism which cleanses the flesh and body only ? Baptize the 
 soul from anger and from covetousness, from envy, from hatred ; and, 
 lo, the body is clean." 
 
 So again in chap, xliii. : " And we who through Him have 
 approached God have received not fleshly but spiritual circumcision, 
 which Enoch and those like him observed. And we, when we had 
 become sinners, because of the mercy of God received it through 
 Baptism. And in like manner all may receive it." 
 
 There are similar references to Baptism in chaps, xliv., Ixxxvi. 
 
 Iren^us, who became Bishop of Lyons in Gaul in a.d. 178, writes 
 On Heresies^ bk. ii. 22. 4: " He came to save all men through Him- 
 self; all, I say, who through Him are born again for God, infants, 
 and children, and boys, and young men, and older men. Therefore 
 He came through every age, for infants having become an infant, 
 sanctifying infants : among children a child, sanctifying those of that 
 age, and at the same time becoming an example to them of piety and 
 righteousness and subjection." 
 
 Clement of Alexandria at the close of the second century 
 writes. Pedagogue^ bk. i. 6 : " Being baptized, we are enlightened ; 
 being enlightened, we are adopted as sons : being adopted, we attain 
 maturity ; attaining maturity, we become immortal." And below, 
 " So also we who receive baptism, having wiped away the sins 
 which like a mist obscure the light of the Divine Spirit, have the 
 eye of the spirit free and unhindered and full of light." Similar 
 references to Baptism follow. In chap. xii. he says : " To me it 
 seems that He Himself formed man out of dust, and begat him again 
 with water, and made him to grow by the Spirit, and trained him by 
 
 * Same word in Ephesians v. 26; Titus iii. 5. 
 
Early Christian Writers. 75 
 
 the word for adoption and salvation, directing him by holy com- 
 mandments." 
 
 About the same time Tertullian at Carthage wrote a treatise 
 On BaptisDi, which begins : " Blessed Sacrament of our water, by 
 which, washed from the sins of our earlier darkness, we are set free 
 for eternal life. . . . We little fishes, like our FISH,* Jesus Christ, 
 are born in water ; nor are we safe in any other way but by remain- 
 ing in water. Therefore Ouintilla, the most monstrous one, (the 
 Cainite heresy,) knew well how to kill little fishes by taking them 
 away from the water." Tertullian assumes the necessity of Baptism 
 for salvation. He replies in chap, xiii, to an objection thus : " They 
 say that Baptism is not necessary for those to whom faith is suffi- 
 cient ; for even Abraham pleased God by a sacrament not of water 
 but of faith. But in all cases later things decide, and those subse- 
 quent prevail over those going before. Salvation was formerly by 
 naked faith, before the suffering and resurrection of the Lord. But 
 now that faith has been enlarged to belief in His birth, suffering, and 
 resurrection, an enlargement has been added to the sacrament, even 
 the sealing act of Baptism, the clothing in some sense of the faith 
 which before was naked and had no power without its own law. For 
 the law of baptizing has been imposed, and its form prescribed. 
 ' Go,' says He, ' teach the nations, baptizing them in the Name of the 
 Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.' To this law is 
 joined that limitation, ' Except a man be born of water and Spirit, 
 he will not enter into the kingdom of heaven : ' and it has bound 
 faith to the necessity of Baptism. Therefore all who afterwards 
 believed were baptized. Then also Paul, when he believed, was 
 baptized." Also in chap, xviii. : " But they whose office it is to 
 baptize know that baptism is not to be entrusted rashly." After 
 urging caution, he adds: "Therefore, according to each one's 
 condition and disposition, and even age, a delay of Baptism is more 
 expedient, especially in the case of little children. For why is it 
 needful that even sponsors be thrust into danger, who both them- 
 selves through mortality may fail to fulfil their promises and be 
 deceived by development of a bad disposition ? The Lord indeed 
 says, 'Do not forbid them to come to Me.' Let them come therefore 
 while they are growing up, let them come while they are learning, 
 
 * The Greek word for fish contains the initial letters of Jesus 
 Christ Son of God. • 
 
76 Christian Baptism. 
 
 while they are being taught where they may come. Let them 
 become Christians when they are able to know Christ. Why does 
 the innocent age of life hasten to the forgiveness of sins ? " After 
 urging delay even upon others, he adds : " If any one understands 
 the importance of Baptism, he will fear rather its reception than its 
 delay. Sound faith is secure of salvation." In chap. vi. of his treatise 
 on Repe?itance Tertullian says : " That laver (or washing) is a sealing 
 of faith ; which faith begins and is commended by a faith of repent- 
 ance. We are not washed in order that we may cease to sin, since 
 we have already been washed in heart." In the matter of Baptism 
 these two works of Tertullian are worthy of careful study. They 
 mark, even by their inconsistencies, a transition of opinion in the 
 earl}^ Church on this important subject. 
 
 Later quotations from Origen, Cyprian, and Augustine are given 
 on pages 28 and 42. They reveal the tendency of thought in the 
 third and following centuries. 
 
 The above are the chief quotations by Christian writers of the 
 first two centuries. They may be verified in Clark's Ante-Nicene 
 Library. But their real significance can be understood only by 
 careful study of other Christian Literature of the same age. The 
 importance given to Baptism as a condition and means of salvation 
 is explained in part by the expositions given in Section i., and in 
 part by the immense importance in those early days of the accession 
 and Baptism of new converts. A dangerous perversion of this 
 importance we see on page 42 in the quotations from Augustine. 
 
 Printed by Hazell, Watson, & Viney, Ld., London and Aylesbury. 
 
OPINIONS OF THE PRESS 
 
 ON THE 
 
 AUTHOR'S COMMENTARIES ON 
 
 THE EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL 
 
 From The Spectator. 
 
 " A very full and elaborate Commentary, marked by all the diligence 
 and erudition which Mr. Beet, by his similar work on the Epistle to 
 the Romans, had before shown himself to possess. The writer is well 
 acquainted with the newest results of criticism, and deals with them in a 
 candid and judicious spirit. Some of his conclusions we cannot accept ; 
 but they are always well weighed and powerfully defended." 
 
 From The Clergyman's Magazine. 
 
 ** We have spoken in cordial terms of the preceding volumes by the 
 author, and it is impossible not to reassert our high appreciation of his 
 valuable work. It will be a mine of wealth to either clergy or teachers 
 who have to prepare sermons or other work from this epistle. Had we 
 to make choice of one commentary only on the Galatians, we should be 
 quite content to be shut up with this. . . . Few men know the Pauline 
 theology better than the author, and everything he produces is of sterling 
 character and worth reading." 
 
 From The Westminster Review. 
 
 **Mr. Beet's Commentary, while thoroughly deserving the attention of 
 scholars, is also intended for the use of every intelligent reader of the 
 English Bible. The convenience of the latter is provided for by exact 
 literal translations, prefixed to each section of the Commentary, of the 
 verses therein commented on. The author's scholarship is guaranteed by 
 Professor Sanday. and the style of his exposition is clear and direct, and 
 free from the unnecessary verbiage which marks so many commentaries' 
 sacred and profane. His object is to use St. Paul's line of thought in the 
 Epistle as a means of arriving at his general conception of the Gospel and 
 of Christ. His standpoint is that of a liberal orthodoxy, and his work is 
 
marked by wide reading and careful research. The dissertation on the 
 relation of the Jewish Sabbath to the Christian day of rest seems to us 
 to call for attention. We can cordially recommend Mr. Beet's work, not 
 only to experts, but to the religious world in general." 
 
 From The Dublin Review, Roman Catholic Quarterly. 
 
 " This learned work deserves special notice, for it combines two pecu- 
 liarities not often found together. It is a thoroughly English Commentary, 
 and yet one that speaks both fairly and kindly of the Catholic Church. 
 We are so accustomed to translations from the German that it is quite 
 refreshing to notice the work of a genuine English scholar, and to find that, 
 M'ithout being inferior in learning, it surpasses foreign works in clearness 
 and method. In fact, the Rev. Mr. Beet is to be congratulated on his 
 success as an expositor, understanding as he does exactly what a reader 
 wants in a Commentary — much knowledge and copious reading condensed 
 into small compass. The analysis of each chapter is most carefully done, 
 and the sequence of thought clearly shown. Another special feature of 
 Mr. Beet's method is the stress he lays on the Evidences of Christianity 
 and the undesigned coincidences which overthrow the objections of modem 
 scepticism. Mr. Beet's theological views on certain points are in contra- 
 diction to the teaching of the Catholic Church, and for that very reason 
 we appreciate the more his kindly tone and his scrupulous fairness. . . . 
 Nor does Mr. Beet allow any odium thtoIogiLum to hinder him from doing 
 justice to his opponent's case. When discussing the Catholic teaching of 
 the Real Presence, he is careful to use the Church's own language as 
 found in the Council of Trent. . . . We have then to thank the Rev. Mr. 
 Beet for his excellent Commentary, and to express the hope that he may 
 be able to accomplish his intention of explaining the other Epistles of the 
 Great Apostle." 
 
 F7'om The Literary Churchman. 
 
 "We have been much impressed by this admirable Commentary. . . . 
 We are greatly struck by the unwearied patience of the commentator, with 
 his very fair scholarship, and above all, with the profound and apparently 
 original vein of thought that pervades his work. No difficulty is ever slurred 
 over. The Essays on 'Justification by Faith' and ' Sabbath Days,' though 
 on such worn subjects, are full of freshness and feeling. Indeed, we have 
 never referred to any subject without some measure of interest and instruc- 
 tion."' 
 
The " British Weekly " Extras. 
 
 Fcap. Stjo, is. ; clothe \s. 6d. 
 
 THE SECOND ADVENT: 
 Will it be before the Millennium ? 
 
 Affirmative, bv Negative^ by 
 
 Kev. Canon Faussett, D.D. Rev. Prof. Joseph Agar Beet. 
 
 Mr. and Mrs. H. G. Guinness. Rev. Prin. T. C. Edwards, D.D. 
 
 Rev. Prof. Godet, D.D. Rev. Principal Brown, D.D. 
 
 "We strongly urge Biblical students to possess this work." — Primitive Methodist. 
 
 Second Edition, completing Tenth Thousand. Fcap. Svo, is. ; c/oth, is. 6d. 
 
 BOOKS WHICH HAVE INFLUENCED ME. 
 
 By R. Louis Stevenson, John Ruskin, W. E. Gladstone, II. Rider 
 Haggard, W. T. Stead, W. Besant, P. G. Hamerton, Professor J. S. 
 Blackie, Ven. Archdeacon Farrar, Dr. W. C. Smith, Dr. Marcus 
 Dods, and Dr. Joseph Parker. 
 
 " Hardly any of the papers are lacking in some kind of personal or intellectual interest, 
 and some of them are full of stimulation and suggestion." — Maftchester Examiner. 
 
 Reprints from the British Weekly. 
 TEMPTED LONDON.— Young Men. 
 
 Crown Svo, c/oth, ^s. 6d. 
 
 A series of chapters on the temptations of young men in London, 
 dealing specially with intemperance, gambling, and impurity. These 
 facts were collected with great care by special commissioners of the 
 British Weekly, and are issued in volume form as a gift book for 
 young men. 
 
 THE RELIGIOUS CENSUS OF LONDON. 
 
 Crozon Svo, cloth, ^s. 6d. 
 
 A SON OF THE MORNING. By Sarah Doudney. 
 
 With Frontispiece. 3^. 6d. 
 
 " It is a work of high art, of high literary quality, full of high feeling, knowledge of 
 human nature, keen insight into human character." — School Board Chronicle. 
 
 WHEN A MAN'S SINGLE. By J. M. Barrie. 
 
 (Gavin Ogilvy.) Buckram, gilt top. Crown Svo. Price 6^. 
 
 " At once the most successful, the most truly literary, and the most realistic attempt 
 that has been made for years — if not for generations — to reproduce humble Scotch life." — 
 Spectator. 
 
 BY THE SAME AUTHOR. 
 
 AULD LIGHT IDYLLS. Bound in buckram, gilt top. 
 Crown Svo. Price 6x. 
 
 LOxNDON : HODDER & STOUGHTON, 27, Paternoster Row, 
 
Every Friday, Price One Penny. 
 
 THE 
 
 BRITISH WEEKLY 
 
 % lountal 0f C^ristmti artir Social Iroguss. 
 
 PRINCIPAL FEATURES:— 
 
 Leading Article. 
 
 Tempted London. Notes of the Week. 
 
 A Serial Story. 
 
 The Correspondence of Claudius Clear. 
 
 Personal. 
 
 Rambling Remarks by a Man of Kent. 
 
 News of the Churches. 
 
 Pulpit Notes. British Table Talk. 
 
 Sketches by Gavin Ogilvy. 
 
 RECENT NOTICES OF THE PRESS. 
 
 " By far the ablest and most readable of all the religious weeklies." — Methodist 
 Recorder. 
 
 "The ablest of all the religious weeklies, and in many ways a pattern for the rest." — 
 Newcastle Leader, 
 
 " A stream of the best religious literature of every land flows into our editorial sanctum, 
 and thence, after being duly fihered, fills the columns of the Southern Cross. Religious 
 papers everywhere, with scarcely an exception, grow brighter and wider, more tolerant 
 and more vigorous ; but the brightest and widest, the most tolerant and most vigorous, of 
 all our exchanges is, perhaps, The British Weekly. The British Weekly is far 
 and away the most scholarly of popular religious papers, and it is also the most resolutely 
 evangelical." — Melbourne Southern Cross. 
 
 Post free for Six Months, 3J'. 3^/. ; Twelve Months., ds. 6d. From the 
 Publishers, 27, Pate^-noster Row, London, 
 
 The British Weekly Pulpit. 
 
 A COMPANION JOURNAL TO ''THE BRITISH WEEKLY^ 
 
 Containing specially reported Sermons, Sermon Outlines, 
 
 Sermonettes for Children, Short Expositions, 
 
 etc., etc. 
 
 EVERY FRIDAY. PRICE ONE PENNY. 
 
 London : HODDER & STOUGHTON, 27, Paternoster Row. 
 
Princeton Theological Seminary Libraries 
 
 1 1012 01184 9629 
 
 
 Date Due 
 
 
 S 2 ". ■4> 
 
 
 
 
 iv . 
 
 '7 
 
 
 
 iMHirr-*' 
 
 
 
 
 >UN t 
 
 n ^nnfi 
 
 
 
 WIT Q 
 
 JiJiNi ^ 
 
 w ^UUU 
 
 
 
 
 U iiuUi 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 f