2011 Issue 4 - Difficulties About Baptism Part 2 - Counsel of Chalcedon

8/12/2019 2011 Issue 4 - Difficulties About Baptism Part 2 - Counsel of Chalcedon

1/21

who should be baptized?part II of difculties

about baptism:

by Douglas Bannerman

A Handbook for Young People

D ifficulties About Baptism byBannerman, written in 1898,was written, as the subtitlestates, for young people. Bannermanstated in the rst part (Part I) of his ar-ticle, A young believer is apt to takeone or two isolated texts in what he sup-poses to be their natural sense, withouttroubling himself to look beyond themor to consider their historic connection,and so to draw premature conclusions.Now, the Baptist argument, as I havesaid already, has a distinct advantagehere. It is very simple, easily put, and

easily understood. It seems quite con- vincing, so long as you do not go beyondMatt. 3:15, Mark 16:16, and Rom. 6:4,and while you interpret these versesfrom the standpoint of the twentiethcentury instead of from the standpointof the rst disciples.

We pastors and theologians rec-ognize that many valuable books havebeen published on the subject of Bap-tism since Bannermans day, some ad-dressing the subject better than others.However, most people will not purchaseor take time to read all those books, andsince this article by Bannerman is outof copyright, we thought it a worthypresentation to make available for ourreaders for whatever use or benet itmay be to them. In the end, I have sadlycome to doubt that Christians will everall agree concerning this subject before

eternity. Both views have their able ad- vocates and defenders based upon theirunderstanding of the Bible. Te greaterissue than mode or infant baptismis Gods covenant promises and howChristians should view and regard theirchildren. I think that another helpful


2/21

13Counsel of Chalcedon Issue 4 2011

Difficulties About Baptism: Part II

way to reconsider this issue, is, as myOPC Pastor and friend, Bill Shishko, putit, Which view more consistently ac-counts for all the data of Scripture? In my view, only one does. Editor

PART II - WHO SHOULD BEBAPTISED? 1

CHAPTER I

S A E OF HE QUES ION: HOWFAR ARE ALL CHRIS IANS

AGREED AS O HE PROPERSUBJEC S OF BAP ISM?

To What Extent do all Christians Agree about baptism?

It is important to understand theexact point of difference here. We maysay that all Christians agree, all overthe world, and have agreed in all ages,that those who have grown up withoutChristian Baptism should be bap-tized only when they make a personalChristian profession. Certainly all theevangelical Churches of Christendomare cordially at one on this point. OurBaptist friends agree with us, and we

with them, on what the Shorter Cate-chism says about it: Baptism is not to beadministered to any who are out of the visible Church, until they profess theirfaith in Christ and obedience to Him.

Now, observe, that applies to all thecases of Baptism expressly recorded inthe Acts of the Apostles, and the Epis-

tles of the New estament, except somethree or four instances of household orfamily Baptism, of which I shall speakpresently. Every other case is commonground with us and our Baptist breth-

1. PAR 1, Te Mode of Baptism, was printed inthe last issue of Te Counsel of Chalcedon.

ren. Nothing can be settled on eitherside of this controversy by quoting anyof these cases of New estament Bap-tism. Suppose a minister of our ownChurch, or of any other of the Churcheswhich believe in Infant Baptism, in theposition of Peter with Cornelius, orof Philip with the eunuch, or of Paulwith Lydia and the jailor of Philippi; hewould act precisely in the same way asthe apostles and the evangelist did. Hewould baptize each and all of these fourpersons as believers; as men or women

who had professed faith in Christ andobedience to Him, in circumstanceswhich made their profession a thor-oughly credible one. So also would aBaptist minister. 2 Tere would be nodifference whatever, so far ; just as thereis no difference in this respect betweenthe practice of Baptist Churches in the

mission eld at the present day and ourown.. Every adult convert from hea-thenism is baptized by their missionar-ies and ours, only on his or her personalprofession of faith in Christ.

Where the Difference comes in:Te difference comes in only when a fur-ther question arises: What is to be doneabout the infant children of these

2. Except that he would insist on immersingthem, and would delay the Baptism till hecould get water enough to do it. We hearnothing of any such delay in the Acts. Onthe contrary, we hear of circumstances inthe case of Cornelius and his friends, andthe jailor, which make it decidedly unlikely

that that mode of baptism was employed.Baptize them too on the ground of their par-ents faith., As the Larger Catechism of theWestminster Assembly puts it : Te infantsof parents, either both or one of them pro-fessing faith in Christ and obedience to Him,are, in that respect, within the covenant, andthe baptized.


3/21

Counsel of Chalcedon Issue 4 201114


baptized believers, supposing theyhave such? Te whole of Christendom,except our Baptist brethren, answers:Baptize them on the ground of their par-ents faith; As the Larger Cate chism ofthe Westminster Assembly puts it: Teinfants of parents, either both or oneof them pro fessing faith in Christ andobedience to Him, are, in that respect,within the covenant, and thus baptized.

The Testimony ofOrigen as to Apostolic

practice of InfantBaptism

We believe, on Scripture groundswhich we shall consider presently, thatthis is the mind of Christ for His Churchin this matter, and that Origen was rightin what he says on this point. He wasone of the greatest of the early Greek Fa-thers, born about A.D. 185, a man whohad lived for years in the Holy Land, whohad visited almost all the Churches ofthe East, and who knew their views andcustoms better probably than any otherChristian teacher of his time. Both hisfather and grandfather had been Chris-

tians before him; so that their combinedtestimony takes you back to the dayswhen the Apostle John was still teachingand baptizing in Ephesus. Well, Origensays without the slightest hesitation: Te Church has received it by tradi-tion from the Apostles to give Baptismeven to infants. 3

3. Origen in Rom. v. 9. Comp. the Apostle Paulsinjunction to the rst Church in Europe, towhich he wrote an epistle : So then, breth-ren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word or by epistleof ours. (2 Tess. ii. 15). Te agrant abuseof the principle of tradition in the Roman

Facts about Family Baptism inthe Apostolic Church must be ex-plained somehow: We never nd in-stances of Baptism in the ApostolicChurch apart from faith in Christ. Butwe do nd instances of several personsbeing baptized together, where theonly faith spoken of is the faith of oneperson, who stands towards the othersin the position of a parent or head ofthe family. Whatever explanation yougive of such facts of the narrative, thefacts are there; and you are bound to

face them frankly, and give some rea-sonable explanation:

1. Look at Acts xvi., 14: And acertain woman, named Lydia, a seller ofpurple, of the city of Tyatira, one thatworshipped God, heard us ; whose heartthe Lord opened, to give heed unto thethings spoken by Paul. And when she

was baptized, and her family, she be-sought us, saying: If ye have judged meto be faithful to the Lord, come into myhouse, and abide there.

It is worth noting that there is adistinction here in the Greek which itwas impossible for our Revisers to bringout in English. Tere are two distinct words used in the New estamentfor family or household; and wehave no two English words that cor-respond to them. 4 Te one (oikia)means household in the wide sense,an establishment, including notonly children but relatives, servants,

Catholic Church ought not to keep us from

attaching due weight, in its own place, to thehistorical testimony of the early Church, as tomatters of fact such as Origen speaks of here.

4. We come nearer the distinction in our Scottishuse of the word family to mean children.A man with a family means with us not thehead of a household, including relatives andservants, but a father of children.


4/21



and dependants. Te other (oikos) isa narrower and more sacred word,denoting especially the children, thefamily regarded as a unity under acommon representative head. Tisdistinction in the use of these twoterms runs all through the Greek Ver-sion of the Old estamentwhich wasour Lords Bible, and that of almost allthe rst disciplesand it is observedalso by the New estament writers. 5

Now, it is the narrower word whichis invariably used in these cases of fam-

ily Baptism, while the wider word issometimes used in the very next verse, 6

when others than the family strictlyso-called are meant.

Notice how this distinction comesout in connection both with the rstand second instances of individual conversion recorded on European ground.

Lydia was a proselyte, accustomed toattend the Jewish worship at Philippi,and familiar with Jewish rules as tothe position of children in the Church.She seems to have been like Mary,the mother of Mark, at Jerusalem, awoman of some wealth, and probably,like her, the widowed head of a family.Her trade was a lucrative one; and herhouse was of a size suitable afterwardsfor the meetings of the brethren inPhilippi. Te steps in her own conver-sion are carefully noted. She heardthe evangelists speak in the Jewishplace of prayer. Te Lord opened herheart to give heed unto the things spo-ken by Paul. She was judged by Pauland his fellow-workers to be faithful to

5. Tere is a full discussion and illustration ofthis interesting point in my CunninghamLectures, Te Scripture Doctrine of theChurch, pp. 76/., 85-88, 320, 325, 504-06.

6. E.g., Acts 16: 31 and 32.

the Lord. And the result was, She wasbaptized, and her family.

Tere is not the slightest indicationthat anyone in the family believed, orwas of age to believe, and to be judgedfaithful to the Lord, except its head andrepresentative. Te natural conclusionis that, as in the Old estament Church,with the usages of which as to the cir-cumcision and baptism of proselytesand their children, Lydia was familiar, 7

the children received the token of Godsgracious covenant, and of the Gospel

preached beforehand unto Abraham,on the ground of their parents faith. 8

2. Look at the next case of individual conversion. Te jailor fallsdown before Paul and Silas in deepspiritual concern, and asks: Whatmust I do to be saved? Acts 16:30-31.

Te missionaries had seen in the

house of Lydia how blessing comes tothe family when it comes to its head;and they said: Believe in the Lord Je-sus Christ, and thou shalt be saved,thou and thy house (family). Te wordsrecall those of our Lord regarding theconversion of Zacchaeus, recorded byLuke in his former treatise: Tis dayis salvation come to this house (family),forasmuch as he also is a son of Abra-ham, Luke 19:9. When the Philippian jailor became by faith a son of Abraham,he became an heir of the promise givento Abraham: I will be a God to theeand to thy seed. Te promise was tohim and to his children. His faith is tobe a means of blessing to them; it bringsthem with himself within the fellow-

7. Of these we shall speak presently.8. Te Baptist supposition is based on their

view that since the Bible says believe andbe baptized; thus, if they were baptized theymust have believed too. Teir presuppositiondetermines the application. Editor


5/21



ship of the visible Church. And in tokenof this, the outward sign of admissionto that fellowship is given alike to thebeliever and to his infant seed, as in thecase of Abraham. He was baptized,he and all his, immediately. And hebrought them up into his house (oikon,his own house, or possibly the familyroom) and set a table before them, andrejoiced greatly, with all his house, he(single in the Greek-editor) having be-lieved in God. Acts xvi. 30-34.

Observe, there is no mention in

this whole passage of anyone havingbelieved, except the jailor himself, al-though he and all his were baptized.Tis is the more noteworthy, becauseit is distinctly stated that the evange-lists preached the Gospel that night toa wider circle than that of the jailorsfamily. Tey spake the word of the

Lord unto him, with all who were in hishousehold (oikia) 9i.e., all who madeup the establishment of the prison, theattendants and underkeepers, as wellas the prisoners who had already beenimpressed by the way in which aboutmidnight Paul and Silas were prayingand singing hymns unto God.

It does not appear, however, that anyexcept the jailor were brought to full de-cision that night, or gave, at least, suchevidence of faith in Christ as would havewarranted the Apostle in baptizing themforthwith. But, with respect to the jailorhimself, there was no difficulty. He was

9. We may be sure that Luke, one of whose char-acteristics among the New estament writ-ers is his scrupulous accuracy in the use oflanguage, would not have used two differentwords here in two successive verses to de-note the same thing.

baptized, he and all his, immediately, hehaving believed in God. 10

3. Te same distinction betweenindividual and family Baptism meetsus in the same natural and individ-ual way in Pauls rst letter to theCorinthians.

I thank God, the apostle writes,that I baptized none of you, save Cris-pus and Gaius. Tat was true as regardsadult believers, whom he was speciallyaddressing in his letter. But in Corinth,as in Philippi, there had been Baptisms

also of another sort; and Paul, as hewrites that sentence, recalls one of these.And I baptized also, he adds, the fam-ily of Stephanas, I Cor. 1. 14-16.

Here again it is the same specialword which is used, denoting the fam-ily in the narrow sensethe family as aunity represented by its head. 11

Tere were older persons, as welearn afterwards incidentally, connect-ed with the home of Stephanas, someof them probably slaves or freedmen.Tese Paul refers to in the last chapterof the same epistle; and he does so witha signicant change of expression. Yeknow the household of Stephanas, thatit is the rstfruits of Achaia, and thatthey have set themselves to ministerunto the saints, I Cor. xvi. 15. It is theother and wider term which the apostleuses now, the one which denotes mem-bers of a circle where the union is notso close as in the family strictly so-called, and where separate individualityis more recognized.

Te distinction between the twowords is worth remembering ; and itis worth noting also that Baptist writ-

10. Again, the Baptist position is the assump-tion that if they were baptized they musthave believed. Editor

11. Ditto 7 and 9.


6/21



ers, so far as my knowledge goes, seemnot to be aware of it, or at least take nonotice of it.

Tese three passages bring out veryclearly the difference between one ofour missionaries to the heathen and aBaptist one. Te former has no diffi-culty in understanding why Lydia andher family should be baptized togetheras soon as she received the Gospel, andwhy Paul, when writing to the Corin-thians, should put a family Baptism ina different category from an ordinary

adult one.Our missionaries baptize converts

and their families on precisely the sameprinciples as the apostle seems at leastto have applied at Philippi and Corinth.Tey do so every year and in every mis-sion-eld, and report them in the samesort of terms; but a Baptist missionary has

to say: No. Tere must be some mistakehere; there cannot have been any chil-dren in these families of Lydia, and the jailor, and Stephanas. Tey must all haveconsisted of grown-up persons, each ofwhom made a separate profession of faithin Christalthough that happens notto be expressly statedbefore he or shewas admitted to Baptism. And althoughPaul does use one word in speaking ofthe family of Stephanas which he bap-tized, and another and different word inspeaking of the household of Stephanaswho ministered to the saints, he must,nevertheless, have meant the same thing;because we read: He that believeth andis baptized shall be saved, and we inferfrom that that belief must always go rst,and Baptism second, in the case of everybaptized person.

hese Cases not our main Ar-gument, but show precise Point ofDifference.

Well, these cases of family Bap-tisms do not form our main argumentby any means. It is a great mistake totreat them as if they did. Tey might,possibly, be

explained away, if they stood alone,especially if you take them apart fromthe history of the Church from the be-ginning on to the apostolic age; but theyt in perfectly with the view which,Origen tells us, the whole Church in thesecond century took of this ordinance,and did so on apostolic authority, and

which the Church as a whole has un-doubtedly taken ever since. Such cases,at the very least, may be fairly said togive a certain presumption in favor ofthat view; and they certainly do not tin easily into the theory that infant andfamily Baptisms were unknown in theapostolic age. Tey always give our Bap-

tist friends some trouble before theycan explain them away, even to theirown satisfaction.

I refer to these family Baptisms atthis stage, because they bring out clearlythe precise point of difference betweenus and our Baptist brethren as to theproper subjects of Baptism. We say thatin all such cases as appear; at least, tohave occurred at Philippi and Corinth,the family of Lydia, and the familyof Stephanas, should be baptized, as wellas Lydia and Stephanas themselves. OurBaptist friends say: No. Only the headsof the family, and any adult members,should be baptized. Te children mustwait till they are grown up, and canmake an intelligent personal professionof faith for themselves.


7/21



CHAPTER II

OU LINE OF MAIN ARGUMEN SFROM SCRIP URE IN SUPPOR

OF INFAN BAP ISM

WHA IS HE EVIDENCE FROMSCRIP URE IN FAVOR OF HE

BAP ISM OF HE INFAN CHILDREN OF PROFESSING BELIEVERS?

As we saw at the outset 12, the ar-gument in support of the view gener-

ally held on this point by the Church ofChrist is what is known as a cumula-tive one. It does not depend on threeor four isolated texts, taken out of theirhistorical connection. It draws from thewhole eld of Scripture, literally fromGenesis to Revelation. It rests especiallyupon the teaching of Scripture as to the

place of the children of believers in thecovenant and the Church of God fromthe time when God rst revealed Hiscovenant and established His Churchon the earth. o do the barest justice tothe argument would need much morespace than can be given to it in such ahandbook as this. It is only an outlineand indication of the argument that Ican offer here.

Of course you must remember herethe distinction between being a memberof the Church and being in full com-munion, having full privileges. Yourbeing received as a member of the vis-ible Church by baptism, on the ground

12. Te infants of Gods professing people weremembers of the Old estament Church fromthe days of Abraham to the days of Christ,and received, by Divine appointment, anoutward sign of their being so. Tey are spo-ken of and treated, during all that period, aswithin Gods covenant on the ground of theirrelation to believing parents.

of your parents faith, does not make you a Communicant; there are certainfurther conditions to be fullled by youas you come to years of understandingand independent choice. Infant mem-bership is, so far, like infant citizenship.A child under age in this country hasnot the right to vote, to hold property,etc.; but it has important rights andprivileges from its infancy as the childof a British citizen. If it were ill-treated,for example, or carried away by a for-eign enemy, the whole power of Britain

would be put forth, if needfulas hasbeen done in well-known casesin thechilds behalf.

Now, the Church of God has beenessentially one from the beginning;membership in it has been determinedby the same great simple principles, andhas included always the same classes

of persons, namely, believers and theirchildren. Te Gospel, the Apostle ofthe Gentiles tells us, was preachedbeforehand unto Abraham. It is theblessing of Abraham which has comeupon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus. Itwas not a mere outward or earthly cov-enant that God made with Abraham asthe father of all them that believe, Gal.iii. 8, 14; Rom. iv. 11. It had nothing todo with the rites and ceremonies of theMosaic Law. Te covenant, the apos-tle says, with special reference to objec-tions of this sort, which was conrmedbeforehand by God (with respect toChrist), the law, which came four hun-dred and thirty years after, doth notdisannul, so as to make the promise ofnone effect. 13 And the promise was thegreat Gospel promise, which binds all

13. Gal. iii. 17. Te clause with respect to Christis excluded from the text of this passage bythe Revisers, as insufficiently supported byMSS. authority. But the whole context and


8/21



Gods record of redemption togetherfrom Genesis to Revelation that Godwould be for an inheritance to His peo-ple and to their children: I will be a Godunto thee and to thy seed after thee. If ye are Christs, then are ye Abrahamsseed, and heirs according to the prom-ise. (Gen. xvii. 7; Gal. iii. 29 ; comp. Jer.xxxi. 31-34 ; xxxii. 38-40; Ezek. xxxvi.24-28 ; xxxvii. 26f.; Hosea i. 9f.; ii. 18,23; Rev. xxi. 3, 6f.) Tere is no greater orricher promise in all the Word of Godto which we could be heirs.

Well, observe, the infant children ofbelievers from Abrahams time onwardgot the same sign and seal of member-ship as their fathers. Circumcision wasthe Old estament Sacrament of ad-mission into the visible 14 Church, theoutward fellowship of Gods professingpeople on earth. It shall be a token of

the covenant betwixt me and you, Godsaid to Abraham. He received the signof circumcision, the apostle wrote, in-terpreting the ordinance for us, a sealof the righteousness of the faith whichhe had while he was in uncircumcision,that he might be the father of all themthat believe, though they be in uncir-cumcision. Gen. xvii. 11 ; Rom. iv. 11.And this sign and seal of the covenantwas administered to Isaac, a child ofeight days old, as well as to Abraham hisbelieving father. Now, if infant childrenwere capable then of membership in the

scope of the passage show that it is at least acorrect interpretation.

14. Here is a major difference of understandingbetween Baptists and covenant Presbyteriansand Reformed. Baptists believe the church isonly composed of those born again; Presby-terians believe that the visible church is com-posed of those who profess faith and theirchildren. Te invisible church is composedof only those who are born again. Editor)

Church, and were entitled on the groundof their parents faith to receive the signof membership, it follows that they mustbe so still. Te olive tree of the Churchto use the apostles gure in the Epistleto the Romansremains the same, al-though the Gentiles have been graftedin and made partakers, with the trueIsrael of God, of the root and fatness ofthe good olive tree. Te covenant prom-ise and the sign of the promise becometheir birthright also in Christ.

II.Te right of the infant chil-

dren of believers to be members ofthe Church, and to be recognized assuch, having been once establishedby Divine authority, must be held tocontinue unless and until it is with-drawn by an express statute of repeal.

Te infant children of believerswere members of the Church, it is ad-

mitted, from the days of Abraham tothe days of Christ. When were theyput out of their privileges as such, andwhy? Te gifts and the calling of God,says the apostle, in a passage where hiswhole argument is based on the unity ofthe Church in Old estament and New

estament times, are without repen-tance, literally are not repented of,do not admit of change of purpose. 15 In other words, it is not the manner ofGod, if we may say so with reverence, togive promises and privileges to His be-lieving people for themselves and theirchildren, and then withdraw them.Certainly He would not do so withoutsome great exceptional reason, andwithout clear intimation of His mindto His Church. Terefore, clearly, theburden of proof lies with our Baptistfriends here. It is allowed on all handsit cannot with any plausibility be de-niedthat infants were members of the

15. Rom. xi. 29.


9/21



visible Church from the time of Isaacscircumcision to the time when the holychild Jesus was also circumcised theeighth day, and afterwards presentedby His earthly parents in the templeat Jerusalem. Why should such infantsnot be members of the visible Churchstill? Tey used to enter with Godsblessing into the covenant fellowship ofHis professing people, on the ground oftheir parents faith, by the door of theSacrament of admission which God ap-pointed, Why should we shut the door

against them now?Te only change is that Baptism has

taken the place of circumcisionbeing,as the Apostle of the Gentiles calls it,the circumcision of Christ, 16 just asthe Lords Supper has taken the placeof the Passover, and the Lords Day ofthe old seventh-day Sabbath. In these

circumstances, we are not only entitledbut bound to ask all anti-paedobaptistsfor their warrant for excluding the chil-dren. o do so without an express Scrip-ture warrant is to incur a most seriousresponsibility, which I, for one, wouldnot venture to take even were there nofurther evidence bearing on the casethan what has been already touchedupon. Where is the statute of repealand prohibition? Not only have we nocommand of our Lord or His apostles toexclude the children from their formerprivileges, but we have many positiveindications to the contrary, as we shallsee presently.

Te New estament history extendsover more than a generation after Pen-tecost; but not a single instance can begiven from that period of the children ofthe rst disciples being left to grow upwithout Christian Baptism, and there-after baptized as adults. Te Baptist

16. Col. ii. 11f.

argument for the exclusion of the chil-dren is all a matter of inferencea veryprecarious inferencefrom such a text,or half-text, as: He that believeth and isbaptized shall be saved [but he that be-lieveth not shall be condemned.] 17

III. Look at some of the chiefpassages in the New estament whichrefer to Baptism and to the place ofchildren in the Church.

In studying such passages, it is es-pecially important to remember onefundamental rule of all sound interpre-

tation of Scripture. It has been admira-bly expressed by one of the greatest andmost devout of German commentators:In the interpretation of Holy Scripture,the reader ought always to seek to placehimself, as it were, in that very time andplace in which the words were spoken orthe things done; and to consider care-

fully the mental and spiritual attitudeof those concerned, the exact force ofthe words, and the whole connection. 18 Keeping Bengels golden rule in mind,let us consider:

1. Our Lords greatBaptismal Commission

Matt, xxviii. 19f. Go ye, there-fore, and make disciples of all the na-tions, baptizing them into the name ofthe Father, and of the Son, and of theHoly Ghost; teaching them to observeall things whatsoever I commanded you; and lo, I am with you alway, even untothe end of the world.

o whom were these words spoken?o men every one of whom had been

brought up in the Jewish Church, whowere familiar from childhood with its

17. Mark xvi.16.18. Bengel, Gnomon. Nov. est in Matt. xvi. 13.


10/21



ordinance of admission and its prin-ciples of Church-membership. Terewas no other Church in the world then.Tey had never heard an objection toinfant Church-membership. o themthe place and privileges of the infantseed of believers were not matters oftheory to be learned from books, butmatters of fact and of every-day reli-gious experience. And to whom werethe eleven and those that were withthem to carry this message? First of allto Jews and proselytes; to such hearers

as Peter had at Pentecost, devout men,Jews and proselytes, gathered for thegreat Jewish festival, from every nationunder heaven; Acts ii. 5-11, to such au-diences as Paul found fourteen, twenty,and thirty years afterwards in thesynagogues and proseuchae (places forprayer) of Antioch, Ephesus, Philippi,

Tessalonica, Corinth and Rome.You cannot possibly understandwhat our Lords words meant to therst disciples, and how He must haveexpected them to interpret and applythem, unless you realize the histori-cal situation and connection. ake theApostle Peters audience at Jerusalem

on the Day of Pentecost. Every devoutJewish father in that crowd had beenhimself circumcised in infancy, andhad had his own child circumcised,pleading the promise to Abraham, Iwill be a God unto thee and to thy seed.Tis is the token of the covenant. Everyproselyte, who was the head of a fam-ily, had received himself that seal ofthe covenant when he believed, andhad then brought forward his littleones to receive it on the ground of hisfaith. Tereby he had openly cast in hislot and theirs with the despised peopleof God. His most memorable religiousexperiences were indissolubly linked

with the momentous step which hethen took, and with its outward signand seal. Tese men did not need anyelaborate explanation about all this. Itcould all be taken for granted by thosewho preached to them the glad tidingsconcerning the Christ.

It would have been a new andstrange thing to them if there had beenno token of Gods covenant for the in-fant seed of His people now, when allthe difference was that the Messiah hadcome, for whom Israel had been waiting

so long, and had proved to be far greater,more glorious, and more gracious thanthey had dreamed. Tat the place andthe privileges of the children of believ-ers were to continue to be in the Churchwhat they had been hitherto, if nothingwas said to the contrary, was from thestandpoint of all the rst disciples the

most natural thing possible; It wentwithout saying, as a matter of course.It is to be remembered, in this

connection, that in the Jewish Churchof our Lords time, and for centuriesprevious, both in the Holy Land and inthe Dispersion throughout the civilizedworld, the circumcision of infants wasthe rule, and that of adults the excep-tion; just as in the Christian Churchnow, save in its Mission elds, InfantBaptism is the rule, and Adult Baptismthe exception.

Suppose initial ordinance of Oldestament Church continued: how

would our Lords Commission read?Suppose, as is quite conceivable, thatour Lord had retained the old Sacra-ment of admission, and had said to theapostles: Go ye and make proselytes 19

19. Justin Martyr and other writers of the sub-apostolic age often use the phrase to be-come proselytes, as synonymous with tobecome Christians. So short a time is


11/21



of all the nations, circumcising themin the name of the Father and the Sonand the Holy Ghost, teaching them toobserve all things. In that case, no onewould maintain that any Jew or devoutproselyte would ever have doubtedthat the infant children of the convertswere to be circumcised as before. It pre-sented just as little difficulty for themwhen our Lord, without forbidding cir-cumcision, singled out the easier riteof Baptismwhich in His time, thereis reason to believe, was the ordinary

accompaniment of circumcision in thecase of proselytes and their childrenas His appointed ordinance for admis-sion into the fellowship of His Church.Te Messiah promised to their fathers,had not come to cast the children ofbelievers out of their ancient birthright.

Only in Christ there is neither

male nor female; and the token of thecovenant was to be a gentler and moregracious one, as became Him whocalled their babes unto Him, saying:Suffer the little children to come untoMe, and forbid them not ; for of such isthe kingdom of God. (Luke xviii. 15f.)

Unless some positive prohibitionof Infant or Family Baptisms had beengiven by our Lord to the rst disciples,their whole providential training andprevious religious experience made itinevitable that they should understandthe terms of the Baptismal Commis-sion in this way. o discipleor makeproselytes ofall the nations meant,from their standpoint, to bring parentsand children together into the covenant

left you in which to become proselytes. IfChrists coming shall have anticipated you,in vain you will repent. Christ and Hisproselytesnamely, we Gentiles, whom Hehas illumined, etc.Dial, cum ryph. xxviii., cxxii.

fellowship of Gods people, and into theschool of Christ, this being representedand sealed by an outward ordinance ofadmission, as from time immemorialin Israel. Te Apostle Paul expresses asimilar thought when he speaks of theIsraelites being all baptized unto Mo-ses at the crossing of the Red Sea, 1Cor. 10:2. Tey were all thereby, adultsand infants together, denitely pledgedto Moses as their leader and lawgiver inGods name. Tey stood in the closestunion with him henceforth, with many

things to learn in the school of the wil-derness, but always looking back uponthat Baptism, as the public and denitebeginning of their discipleship.

2. Conrmation ofthis Argument from

the Facts aboutProselyte Baptism among the Jews.

Te argument now sketched is, Ibelieve, perfectly conclusive in itself,even although it stood alone. But itnds a strong conrmation in the factsregarding Proselyte Baptism among theJews in the New estament period, asthese are brought out by investigationssuch as those of Prof. Schurer in hisgreat work on

Te History of the Jewish Peoplein the ime of Jesus Christ. 20

Put shortly, the facts are theseBaptism (as well as circumcision in the

case of males) was administered by theJews in our Lords time to all proselytes,men and women alike, and to all infantswhose parents made a profession of theJewish faith. Te two things were com-

20. Clarks Ed., ii., 319-324. See also my Script.Diet, of the Church, 235-238.


12/21



bined with a sacrice in the emple (or a vow to offer one when possible), to formthe full ordinance of admission into theJewish Church. Baptism makes theproselyte like a little child, the Jewishteachers said: He undergoes therein anew birth. (Compare John 3:3-8). Ina very ancient Ethiopic version of theGospels, our Lords statement aboutthe proselytizing zeal of the Phariseesin His dayswhich was especially suc-cessful among women of good socialpositionis translated: Ye compass

sea and land to baptize one proselyte.21

Our Lord, therefore, simply singledout one of the three elements usuallycombined at that time in the admis-sion of proselytes, as the most suitablefor the initial ordinance of His Church,and left the other two to die out ofthemselves.

Circumcision and Baptism evi-dently continued for a time side by sidein the Jewish Christian Church, justas the observance of the old Seventh-day Sabbath and of the Lords Day did,and as Hebrew Christians, some thirty years after the Resurrection of Christ,still made certain offerings in the em-ple. Paul did not forbid the Jews whichwere among the Gentiles to circum-cise their children, as the elders of theChurch at Jerusalem told him, on hislast visit there, was falsely reported ofhim (Acts xxi. 20-26). But he baptizedfamilies as well as individuals, whenthe head of the family had believed.

21. See Winer, Real. Worterb. s. voce Pros-elyten; Leyrer in Herzogs Real. Ency. Art.Proselytes, 242/., and other references inScript. Doct. of the Church, 236/.

3. Christianity theCompletion of Judaism

It was, in the fullness of time thatChrist came. Tings were ripe for thetransition from the old to the new. Bothdispensations were arranged by the

same Mind; and the one was meantto prepare for the other, so that thereshould be no rude jar or shock whenthe transition was made, but that aschildhood passes into youth, and youthinto manhood, by an easy and natural

growth, so naturally and easily shouldthe Jewish Church become the Churchof Christ

Tis idea, that Christ came as thecompletion of Judaism, and that Hisreception had been prepared for by thehistory, the religion, and the Ecclesias-tical ideas and arrangements of Israel,

is essential to the understanding of thework of the apostles. (Prof. MarcusDods, Presbyterianism Older thanChristianity, p. 9)

Now, chief among the ecclesiasti-cal ideas and arrangements of Israel,were those of which I have been speak-ing, as to the place and privileges in the

Church of the infants of Gods believ-ing people. An understanding of thesethings came naturally, as it were, to allthe rst disciples. Tey had grown upfrom childhood in the midst of them.Tey needed no explanations such as Ihave been giving now. But for us thereis need of some little pains and studyof the subject, if we are to put ourselvesat their standpoint. Yet that we shoulddo so is essential, as Dr. Dods saystruly, if we are to understand the workof the apostles, and the ordinances ofworship and government of the Apos-tolic Church. Tis is where our Baptistbrethren so seriously fail.


13/21



Teir argument is plausible enough,if the Bible had begun with the last vers-es of Matthew or Mark, and if Christi-anity had not been divinely prepared forthrough some two thousand years bythe Providential training, the religioushistory, and the ecclesiastical principlesand ordinances of Israel. Let a manonce intelligently realize the historicalsituation in which our Lords BaptismalCommission was given and the wholeBaptist argument falls to the ground.

4. Consider our Lords words and actions

when babes werebrought to Him for

blessing.

Luke xviii. 15 And they brought

unto Him also their babes that Heshould touch them; but when the dis-ciples saw it, they rebuked them. ButJesus called them (the babes - OurLords call here was to the babes, notthe parents merely. In the original thisis unmistakable from the gender of thethem.) unto Him, saying: Suffer thelittle children to come unto Me, andforbid them not; for of such is the King-dom of God. And He took them inHis arms, Mark adds (x. 16), with theminuteness of one who had his accountfrom an eyewitness; and blessed them,laying His hands upon them.

Here, and in other like passages,we nd Christ recognizing and actingupon that same principle of representa-tion, or covenant headship, which wasso familiar to the Jewish mind fromthe days of Abraham. Te father, or themother, was the head of the family. OurLord counted it a call to the babes,although it reached them only in and

through their parents. He counted it astheir coming, in some real sense untoHim, when they were brought in theirmothers arms; and He gave them, asthus brought, a visible sign of His spe-cial love and blessing, which was never,so far as we know, given to any discipleof riper years. Is it not clear how all thisapplies to what is done when a believingfather and mother now bring their littleones to the Lord for His blessing in theordinance of Baptism?

Of such is the Kingdom of God. If

the Lord owns such babes as belongingto His Church and Kingdom, why shouldwe refuse them the sign of connectionwith its fellowship on earth? Whososhall receive one such little child in Myname receiveth Me, Matt. xviii. 5. In-fant Baptism is just the Church doingin Christs name what our Lord Himself

did when on earth, and bids us do afterHis example, namely, receive a littlechild in His name, as in a special sensedear to Him, and to be recognized assuch in His Church on earth, especiallywhen it comes to Him, even in thearms of a believing father or mother. Ifthe sheep are in the fold, as an Ameri-can writer puts it, why should not thelambs be also, with such special tokensof welcome from the good Shepherd? Isit not a serious responsibility to seem totake the position of the disciples, whorebuked those who brought their babesto the Lord for His blessing, and for anoutward sign of it?

5. Children ofBelieving Parents

called Holy

1 Cor. vii. 14 For the unbeliev-ing husband is sanctied in the wife,and the unbelieving wife is sanctied


14/21



in the brother; else were your childrenunclean; but now are they holy.

Te Church at Corinth had risen,like almost all the Pauline Churches,out of the local synagogue, with itscircle of proselytes or God-fearing Gen-tiles. Several of the leading men of theChurch, such as Crispus, had been Jew-ish office-bearers. No one familiar, asthey were, with the Old estament andwith Jewish synagogue usages, couldhave any difficulty in understandingthe Apostles argument in the text, or

the terms he uses, Holy and unclean,have their ordinary Old estamentsense. Tey mean consecrated, setapart for God, within the fellowshipof His covenant people, or the reverse.All Christian parents at Corinth knewfrom the teaching of the Apostle, andfrom the practice of the Church under

his guidance as to family Baptism,as in the case of Stephanas, 1 Cor.1:16,that their children, even where onlyone of the parents was a believer, werecounted holy in that sense of the word.Tey were set apart for God, entitledto a place and name within the cov-enant fellowship of His people on earth,and treated as such. 22 In other words,the Church membership of the infantsof believers was an admitted and a fa-miliar truth in the Church at Corinth,as in all the other Apostolic Churches, just as it had been in the Old estamentChurches, and, as it was at that time, inevery synagogue congregation, whetherin the Holy Land or in the Dispersion.

Te Apostle takes all this for grant-ed in the text, and argues from it. If your children, who from their age are

22. Baptists state that there is no mention ofwater baptism here. Of course, that begs thequestion, since baptism itself is not the issuein this passage Editor.

not yet able to believe, are yetas youknownot unclean, but sanctied orconsecrated in Gods sight, in virtueof their union with you, their believingparent, why should you not also be as-sured of this, and take the comfort ofit, that your husband or wife, who doesnot yet believe, is likewise, not commonor unclean, but, in a sense, set apart forGod, in virtue of his or her relation ofunion with you, in which they desireto remain. Tey and you are right incounting that union a sacred thing.

Tey are brought, so far, near toGod thereby. Te unbelieving husbandis sanctied in the wife, and the unbe-lieving wife in the husband. Cherishthe link, and use the opportunities itgives you as a means by Gods grace toa deeper and closer union in the Lord,that thou mayest save thy husband

mayest save thy wife. Prof. Godet of Neuchatel, one of the very ablest interpreters of the New es-tament, says on this verse : For my partI cannot regard the expressions used byPaul in this passage as intelligible exceptupon the supposition of the existence ofthe custom of Infant Baptism. 23

6. Practicalillustr ation of how

Infant Baptism speaksfor itself in the

Mission eld.

Reference might have been madeto other passages in the New estament

23. Godet, Premiere Epitre aux Corinthiem,Paris, 1886, i. 312-317. See his excellent ex-position of the whole passage, in which heshows, with his usual lucidity and force, howincompatible the Apostles statements andreasonings are with the doctrine of Baptis-mal regeneration.


15/21



similar to those now considered, such asthat in which Paul speaks of Baptism asthe circumcision of Christ, and that inwhich he explains the spiritual meaningof circumcision; or the family Bap-tisms at Philippi and Corinth, mightnow have been taken up more in detailthan was done above (Part II, Chapt. 1).But our space is limited ; and I close thischapter with a practical instance of theway in which Infant Baptism speaks foritself to earnest and thoughtful Chris-tians, when brought fairly into contact

with the practical working of our systemin this matter in the eld of Missions,whether at home or abroad.

When I was in my rst charge in theneighborhood of Edinburgh, I came toknow a very intelligent Christian man,who at that time was a strong Baptist ofthe good old school of the Haldanes, as

his father, I think, had been before him.He was a man of decided ability and ofgood education, and held a position oftrust in connection with large miningworks in our district. He was led bydegrees to change his views about Bap-tism, both by an independent study ofScripture, and by observing the practi-

cal working of the Presbyterian systemas to family Baptisms. We had a time ofgreat spiritual blessing in our MissionChurch among the miners close to theplace where he lived. Tere were manyconversions of careless and unbaptizedparents; and there were often verytouching scenes in connection with theBaptisms, both of adults and children,in the presence of the congregation,or in little household gatherings. Tisgood man had thrown himself heartilyinto the work, and was much impressedby this feature of it. Presently he cameto me, of his own accord, to speak aboutthe question of Baptism.

I remember well that he told me,with tears in his eyes, how on thoseevenings he seemed to see the scenes inthe Apostolic Churches at Philippi andCorinth actually before him. Here wasLydia, whose heart the Lord opened,that she attended unto the things whichwere spoken. When she was judgedfaithful to the Lord, she was baptized,and her family; and her house becamea centre of Christian life and inuence,and a place for little meetings of thebrethren. Here was a rough man, likethe jailor at Philippi, a terror sometimesto his family and neighbors, but nowshaken by the power of God in his ownconscience, asking: What must I do tobe saved? Te Gospel was spoken tohim, as bringing salvation for him andfor his family. Others in his householddid not believe at the time; but he did.Tere were little children in the house;and, after suitable probation and in-struction, he was baptized, he and allhis family, straightway., And therewas great joy in his house,even thelittle ones feeling the difference,hehaving believed in God.

It was all so real and living, like abit out of the book of the Acts; it spokefor itself to me, I remember my friendsaid. His doubts and scruples aboutInfant Baptism all disappeared. He be-came one of our best and most trustedhelpers in the work, and was one of therst Elders chosen and ordained in theMission congregation. All his own chil-dren, then grown up, became decidedChristians. I had the privilege of bap-tizing them, on their own profession offaith, and some years afterwards of bap-tizing also more than one of their littleones, before their father passed away ina ripe age, leaving an honored name as


16/21



an inheritance to his children and hischildrens children.

CHAPTER III

OU LINE OF EVIDENCE REGARDING INFAN BAP ISM

FROM CHURCH HIS ORY AF ERHE APOS OLIC AGE

SO long as the early Church wasessentially a missionary one, makingits way in the face of heathen persecu-

tion, we nd, as was to be expected, thatadult Baptisms were both more numer-ous and much more conspicuous thaninfant ones. Precisely the same thingholds in the Foreign Mission eld to-day. It is by Adult Baptisms that deniteprogress is marked. Tey ll the fore-ground in all our missionary reports.

But as soon as we get any informa-tion on the subject, we nd Infant Bap-tism proceeding as a matter of course,in the second and third centuries,alongside of that of adult converts. Itis referred to in that way by Irenaeus, 24 born early in the second century. Hewas a personal disciple of the martyrPolycarp, who was a disciple and friendof the Apostle John.

Justin Martyr, another contempo-rary of Polycarp and born in the HolyLand, speaks to the same effect. Withus, he says, are many, both men andwomen, who were discipled to Christin their childhood, and at the age ofsixty or seventy years do continue un-

corrupted, and I could produce suchfrom every race of men. Te referenceis obviously to the words of the greatcommission, Disciple all the nations,baptizing them. Justin wrote about the year A.D. 148. Tese contemporaries

24. Irenseus, Adv. Hoer., ii. 22, 4; Comp. iii. 17, 1.

of his, now sixty or seventy years old,must have been discipled to Christ aschildren before the death of the ApostleJohn. With Justin, as with the earlyChristian writers generally, Baptismis treated as having taken the place ofcircumcision. We have received notcarnal but spiritual circumcision, andwe have received it through Baptism. 25

he evidence of Origen on thispoint has been quoted already . Hewas born about A.D. 185, and speaksas an eminently competent and reli-

able witness both to the practice ofInfant Baptism by the Church of thesecond century and to their beliefthat in baptizing the infants of believ-ers they were following the preceptsand example of the apostles. It may beadded that Origen expressly guardshimself against being supposed to

teach Baptismal regeneration. Not allwho are bathed in water, he says, areforthwith bathed in the Holy Spirit.(Origen, Horn, in Num., iii. 1.)

ertullian, the rst of the Latinfathers, born before A.D. 160, speaks inthe clearest terms of Infant Baptism asthe practice of the Church in his time,and does not give the slightest hintthat in his view it was either an inno- vation or unscriptural. But, with char-acteristic boldness, he argued againstit on the ground of expediency. In thecase of infants, it would be more use-ful to delay. And why? Because, in hisopinion, and it was a growing one inthe Church from that date onwards,Baptism in every case washed away allprevious sins, We enter the font once;once are sins washed away. . . ., Whythen should that innocent age hasten tothe remission of sins? etc., etc. It was

25. Justin Martyr, Apol., i. 13 ; Dial, cum ryph.,iv. 3.


17/21



on that ground 26 only that he opposedBaptism both in the case of infants andof all persons exposed to special temp-tations, such as the unmarried andwidows. 27 And on such grounds delay ofBaptism became common at that timeand later, as in the well-known case ofConstantine, the rst Christian Em-peror, who was not baptized till almoston his deathbed.

It is well worth noting that ertul-lian is the rst opponent of Infant Bap-tism on record, and that he opposed it

simply from the standpoint of his the-ory of Baptismal regeneration. But hisprotest, as Dr. Schaff says, fell withoutan echo. We hear no more of opposi-tion to Infant Baptism until the Ana-baptists arose in the sixteenth century.

Our Baptist brethren in this coun-try are, as a rule, strongly opposed to

Sacramentarianism in every form; andthey often represent it as one great ad- vantage of their view of Baptism thatit secures them against the doctrine ofBaptismal regeneration and all errorsand evils connected therewith. No onewill be inclined to accept that represen-tation as correct who remembers thatthe rst man to oppose Infant Baptismwas one who did so expressly in the in-terests of Baptismal regeneration; and,further, that probably the strongest up-holders of Baptismal regeneration in theworld are a sect of Baptists known asthe Campbellites, oras they prefer tocall themselves Disciples of Christ.President Rooke, sometime head of Raw-don Baptist College, Leeds, in his bookon Baptism, gives an account of thisbody. Tey are very strong in the UnitedStates. Te Campbellite Baptists, saysPresident Rooke, hold the doctrine of

26. An erroneous ground - Editor27. ertullian, De Baptismo, xv. 18.

Baptismal regeneration very much as wecan imagine the Christian fathers of thethird and fourth centuries held it. Teynot only insist upon, but put into specialprominence, this utterly unscripturalnotion of Baptismal regeneration. 28

According to the CampbelliteBaptists, no one was ever regeneratedunless he was immersed as an adult inBaptist fashion; and everyone who hasbeen thus immersed has been regener-ated. And their method of proving this isexactly the Baptist method of interpret-

ing Scripture. Tey quote three or fourisolated texts, which, taken alone, andout of their connection, certainly seemto teach Baptismal regeneration. Ex-cept a man be born of water and of theSpirit (water rst, they bid you observe,and then the Spirit), he cannot enterinto the kingdom of God. Arise and be

baptized, and wash away thy sins. Hesaved us through the laver of regenera-tion. Tese texts, or fragments of texts,certainly seem to teach Baptismal regen-eration quite as clearly as the other threeor four isolated texts, or parts of texts,which our Baptist brethrenthe Camp-bellites includedquote in support oftheir view, teach that adult believers arethe only persons whom it is lawful tobaptize. But the method is equally un-sound in both cases, and the conclusionsarrived at are equally unreliable.

SO WHO SHOULD BEBAPTIZED?

CHAPTER IV

OBJEC IONS O INFAN BAPISM ANSWERED

28. Rooke, Doctrine and History of ChristianBaptism. London, 1894, p. 53.


18/21



HE objections usually urgedagainst Infant Baptism have, in sub-stance, been dealt with already; but a fewwords may be added before closing. Teobjections reduce themselves practicallyto two: First, Tere is no express war-rant for Infant Baptism in ScriptureWho hath required this at yourhands? And, Secondly, According toNew estament precept and example,belief should always go before Bap-tism. What is the use or the sense ofbaptizing unconscious babes?

I.Give a text enjoining Infant Bap-tism, our Baptist friends say, and we will obey it at once. But until you canproduce an express Scripture warrantfor the practice, we will never adopt it.

wo things may be said in reply :1. Tis is an altogether wrong at-

titude for us to take towards God. Heis not bound to one way only of mak-ing known His will to His people. Wehave no right to say we refuse obedi-ence unless God speaks to us in expressprecepts like the en Commandments.Tat particular way is characteristicrather of the earlier dispensations thanof the manhood of the Church underthe Gospel. If Gods mind and will aremade plain to us in any way, or by manyways combined, by good and neces-sary inference from Bible statements,by right application of Scripture prin-ciples and examples, by the silence ofScripture,there is the same obligationresting on us to obey, as if He had laidcommand upon us in so many words.

You remember how our Lordblamed the Sadducees for ignoranceof the Scriptures because they had notlearned the doctrine of the Resurrec-tion from the words spoken to Moses

at the bush. Jesus answered and saidunto them, Ye do err, not knowing theScriptures, nor the power of God A stouching the resurrection of the dead,have ye not read that which was spokenunto you by God, saying, I am the Godof Abraham, and the God of Isaac, andthe God of Jacob ? God is not the Godof the dead, but of the living. Te truthconcerning the resurrection was cer-tainly not taught in that passage in somany words, but it was there. Te mindof God was spoken unto them by

good and necessary inference from thewords; and the Sadducees are blamedfor not having drawn the inference, asthey might and should have done.

Our Baptist brethren act on thissound principle in other instances.Tey keep the Christian Sabbath, andbelieve in its Divine obligation; yet they

could not give a single text in the Newestament enjoining them to observethe Lords Day instead of the old Sev-enth Day Sabbath, which is enjoined inScripture. 29 All Baptists welcome wom-en to the Lords able. Yet there was nowoman among the disciples in the up-per room when the Lord said, Tis do

29. One body of Baptists, with praiseworthyconsistency in the application of Baptistmethods of exegesis, have adopted a separateposition on this point too. Tey hold thatall Christians should keep the Seventh-DaySabbath, because it is enjoined in expresswords, and not the Lords Day, because itsobservance rests on no denite text of Scrip-

ture. Te Bible, logic, and consistency, saysan able representative of this denomination,compel me to be a Seventh Dayi.e., a Sab-bath-keeping Baptist..Tere is no middleground at this point. I must be a RomanCatholic, or remain a Seventh-Day Baptist.(Rev. Dr. Lewis in Why I Am what I Am).New York, 1891, pp. 142, 144.


19/21



in remembrance of Me; and there is notext in the New estament authorizingwomen to eat of the Lords Supper.

But in both cases, as regards boththe Lords Day and the Lords able,the duty and the privilege can be estab-lished by good and necessary inferencefrom what Gods Word says and fromwhat it does not say, and by the right ap-plication of general Scripture principlesand statements.. And in precisely thesame way can it be fully established thatit is the duty and privilege of believing

parents to present their little ones tothe Lord in Christian Baptism.

2. As has been shown above, theburden of proof in this matter liesunquestionably with our Baptistbrethren.

Te children of believers were inthe Church in our Lords time, as they

had been confessedly since the days ofAbraham. Tey received the Sacramentof admission, the sign and seal of thecovenant, on the ground of their par-ents faith. It would have needed an ex-press command, or its equivalent in anauthoritative instance of prohibition,to put them out. Where is such a com-

mand to be found in all the New esta-ment? Where is there a single instanceof an apostle delaying to baptize any ofthe family of a believer, on the groundthat they were too young, and baptizingthem years afterwards when they weregrown up? When our Baptist brethrenmaintain that the command to discipleall the nations, baptizing them is nar-rower in its scope than a command todisciple all the nations, circumcisingthem would have been, the burden ofproof certainly lies with them, becausethe presumption to the contrary is ofthe very strongest kind. And no proof isforthcoming, in either of the two forms

in which alone it could be received, aprohibition or an instance.

II. It is objected. Belief shouldalways go before Baptism. Does not

the Evangelist Mark say: He thatbelieveth, and is baptized, shall besaved.? Mark xvi. 16

Infants cannot believe; thereforethey ought not to be baptized. Well,that half text, so often quoted, reallyproves nothing whatever against Infant

Baptism. ake the text as it standsonly take the whole of it, and take thecontext with it; and the meaning isperfectly plain. It refers to the Gospelbeing preached in all the world, thegreat heathen world beyond the boundsof Israel. It is to be preached and heardunder solemn sanctions. It carries withit a savor of life and of death. Every-where it calls for faith, and confessionof faith before men. He that believethand is baptized shall be saved; but hethat believeth not shall be condemned.

Te promise and the warning applyonly to the case under consideration.You can no more rightly infer fromthese wordsit is purely a matter of in-ference at the mostthat the infants ofbelievers should not be baptized, thanthat they cannot be saved, because theycannot believe. Yet He that believethnot shall be condemned. You might just as well argue from the Apostlesrule: He that will not work neither lethim eat, that because infants do notwork they should get nothing to eat.In both cases, the words apply to thoseonly in reference to whom they are spo-ken. And the historical situation makesit perfectly clear how the rst discipleswould understand Christs commandabout discipling the nations.


20/21



If we are asked: Why baptize un-conscious babes? our answer is: Be-cause it is in accordance with Scriptureprinciple, and Scripture precedent inthe Church of God from the days ofAbraham to the days of Christ. If un-conscious babes were circumcised, aswe know, according to the will of God,on the ground of their parents faith,why should they not be baptized on theground of their parents faith?

If ye be Christs, then are ye Abra-hams seed, and heirs according to the

promise. For to you is the promise,Peter said, speaking to devout Jews andGentile proselytes, and to your chil-dren, and to all that are afar off, evenas many as the Lord our God shall callunto Him, Gal. iii. 29, Acts ii. 39. TeSavior called the babes unto Him, andtook them up in His arms and blessed

them, when brought to Him in thearms of believing mothers. He wasmuch displeased with the disciples,who, with the best intentions, wouldhave forbidden them to be brought forthe blessing, because they were butunconscious babes, who could neitherunderstand nor believe.. Is there nodanger of a like mistake being made inour time by those who, with the best ofmotives, would act in a similar way?

Conclusion

Baptism, as has been well saidby R. W. Dale of Birmingham, is aglorious Gospel in an impressive rite.In this little hand-book I have soughtchiey to meet difficulties which youngmen and women may not unnaturallyfeel about this ordinance, and to showon what broad and strong foundationsthe common view and practice of Re-formed Christendom really rest, as re-

gards both the mode and the subjectsof Baptism. It is not possible within thelimits assigned me to speak, as I wouldlike to do, of the positive message of thisSacrament to us all; nor, in particular,of the special message of Infant Bap-tism to parents and children, and to thewhole congregation in whose presenceit is administered.

A few words only I may say, in clos-ing, as to the message of your Baptismto you, young men and women, whohave been baptized in infancy, brought

by believing fathers and moth-ers for the sign of Gods covenant..Remember, Christ called you then ascertainly as He called the babes untoHim when the mothers brought themto Him in faith for His blessing. Have you answered to the call? It has beenoften repeated He calleth His own

sheep by name, and leadeth them out.Your name was given in to God thenas of one brought by loving hands intothe school of Christ, discipled untoHim. Is it known now as the name of atrue disciple of the Lord Jesus, who hasgladly taken his place in the ranks ofHis people, confessing Him at His ableand following Him in daily life?

You were baptized into the nameof the Father, and the Son, and theHoly Ghost. Tat great inheritancethat God should be your God, as Hewas your fathers and your mothersGod, through Jesus Christ and by theSpiritwas brought near to you then.Your baptism in Gods house, and in themidst of His people, was a public tes-timony from God that He was willingthat this should be your inheritance.Earnest prayer was offered then that itshould be yours. Have you claimed itand made it your own by personal faith,by receiving and resting upon the Lord


21/21


Jesus Christ alone for salvation as Heis offered to us in the Gospel, offeredfrom the rst both by word and sign?

Te efficacy of Baptism is not tiedto that moment of time wherein it is ad-ministered; but by the right use (andimprovement) of this ordinance thegrace promised is not only offered, butreally exhibited and conferred by theHoly Ghost to such, whether of age orinfants, as that grace belongeth unto,according to the counsel of Gods willin His appointed time, Westminster

Conf. of Faith, xxviii. 6.Our Baptism in infancy is thus a

visible word to us from God at the very beginning of our life, repeated ev-ery time we see a little child baptized,telling us that the Lord has been before-hand with us from the rst, calling usto Himself by word and sign from our

earliest days that He may lay His handsupon us and bless us.. It brings us undera special obligation to be the Lords. Itinvolves a special sin if, when we cometo years of understanding, we deliber-ately put away from us the Lords offer,and His promise of all needful graceand blessing, which were presented andsealed to us in our Baptism.

FOR FURTHER READING

J. V. Fesko, Word, Water, and Spirit.

Douglas Wilson, o a Tousand Gen-erations.

J., Murray, Christian Baptism.

Robert Reymond, A New SystematicTeology. Come with desire and you shall go away

with comfort. You shall have the virtues ofChrists blood, the in uences of His Spirit,the communications of His love.

A fter several years of meditation, study,and prayer, Judy has completed writ -ing and composing songs for each of theBeatitudes.

Judy says, This may be the most signi -cant body of songs I have written.

Documents

2011 Issue 4 - Difficulties About Baptism Part 2 - Counsel of Chalcedon