Full text of "Report of the Special Commission on Baptism"

See other formats

Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2017 with funding from
Princeton Theological Seminary Library

https://archive.org/details/reportofspecialc00chur_3

CfjurtI) of ^totlanb

INTERIM REPORT

OF THE

SPECUL COMMISSION ON BAPTISM

REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMISSION ON BAPTISM

CONTENTS

PAGE

I. Introduction ......... 3

II. Baptism in The Church of .Scotland, 1843-1959 . . 4

1. The Modern. Tradition ....... 4

(a) The Evangelical Revival ..... 4

(b) The Rise of Liberalism ..... 4

(d) The Revival of Worship ..... 5

(e) The Continuing Tradition ..... 5

2. The Secession and U.P. Tradition ..... 6

(a) The Original Secession Testimony . . . G

(b) Principal David S. Cairns ..... 7

3. The Free Church Tradition ...... 8

(a) Andrew A. Bonar ...... 8

(b) James Baimerman ...... 9

(d) The Tension Between Reformation and Federal

Theology ....... 14

(e) Church Practice . . . . . . .15

4. The Chm’ch of Scotland Tradition . . . . .16

(a) Principal Dewar . . . . . .17

(b) Thomas J. Crawford . . . . . .18

(d) Church Practice . . . . . . .21

5. The Remiited Church of Scotland ..... 23

III. The Church of Scotland and Bapti.st Teaching . . 24

1. The Nature of the Church ...... 26

2. The Rejection of Infant Baptism ..... 27

3. Some Comments ........ 27

4. The Nature of Believer’s Baptism ..... 29

5. Redemption and Salvation ...... 30

6. The Nature of Regeneration ...... 31

7. The Meaning of a Sacrament . . . . . .31

8. The Place of Decision ....... 32

REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMISSION ON BAPTISM

REPORT

INTRODUCTION

The Commission wishes to thank Presbyteries for their very helpful and
encouraging comments. Many have contained valuable suggestions for
the formulation of the doctrine of Baptism. Others have drawn attention
to practical matters upon which the Assembly will ultimately require to
pass judgement. Almost all have expressed a growing appreciation of the
work of the Commission and the lines along which its thought is developmg.

For various reasons it has not proved possible to have a draft statement
of the doctrine of Baptism ready in time for submission to this Assembly.
Certain Presbyteries, however, asked that the Commission should bring
its historical survey up to the present time, and this has been done in the
following pages. The Commission hopes that the Church will find this
both interesting and helpful, for many of the men with whom this survey
deals are still remembered among us, and continue to exercise an influence
upon the life and teaching of the Church. From this review of the recent
past the Commission believes that we can trace the elements of strength
in each of the traditions that have now come together in the life of our
national Church, and at the same time see the influences which have, at
various points, tended to lead us in mistaken directions.

Another thing which the Commission has done in this year’s Report
is to give a statement expressing as fairly as possible the position of the
Baptist Churches, and focusing attention on the points at which we
disagree with them. This also has been done in response to the request of
several Presbyteries.

The Commission has not thought it necessary to provide any further
consideration of the other major position apart from our own, viz. that
of the Roman Catholic Church. Its official teaching was dealt with in the
1957 Report, on the basis of the writmgs of Thomas Aquinas and the
decisions of the Council of Trent.

One further point is worth mentioning. In the Introduction to last
year’s Report the Commission mentioned that the draft statement of the
doctrine of Baptism will, if approved by the Assembly, be sent down
to Presbyteries under the Barrier Act. Some Presbyteries have asked that
the draft statement should be sent down to Presbyteries for discussion
before being sent down mider the Barrier Act. With this suggestion the
Commission is in hearty agreement. The sole purpose of mentioning the
Barrier Act last year was to make it clear that time must elapse before
the preparation of popular statements for the use of parents and young
people. Such statements can only be produced after the Church has officially
declared its mind upon the doctrine.

The Commission again commends the book, The Biblical Doctrine of
Baptism, which has been published by the Saint Andrew Press, and hopes
that the Church will find it useful as a guide to the understanding of the
Biblical teaching which must be the foundation of all our doctrine.

With this year’s Report the Commission has completed its preliminary
task — -the study of the Biblical doctrine, and the study of the doctrine and
practice in the history of the Church. It hopes to be in a position to submit
a draft statement of the doctrine of Baptism to next year’s General Assembly.
It will greatly help the Commission in essaying this difficult task if Presby-
teries will let it have their comments and suggestions by the earliest possible
date.

REPORT OP THE SPECIAL COMMISSION ON BAPTISM

II. BAPTISM IN THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND

1843-1959

1. THE MODERN TRADITION

The problems and tensions which were carried over into this period
from the preceding one were smnmarized in the Epilogue to the 1958
Report under the following three heads : A. The contradiction between
Federal Theology and the Gospel of Grace. B. The divorce of the Atone-
ment from the Incarnation. C. The separation of the Church Visible
from the Church Invisible.

The Calvin Translation Society, which was foimded in 1843, by issuing
new translations of Calvin’s works, stirred up in all branches of the Chmch
an imderstanding of Christ and the Gospel akin to that of the Scots
Reformers. This led to an increasingly evangelistic and missionary outlook
which helped to undermine the rationalistic tendencies of the Federal
Theology, with its doctrine that Christ died for the elect only, on the one
hand, and the “ moralism ” of the Moderates, on the other. Thus within
the divided witness of the Church a new unity m the Gospel began to be
forged.

Both in Scotland and on the Contuient an increasmg tendency towards
subjectivism in theology and 23hilosophy had been noticeable since the
middle of the seventeenth century. Although the rationalism of the Federal
Theology may be interpreted as a reaction against this, it served only to
provoke a more vehement pietistic reaction which foimd the essence of
Protestant Christianity in the individual’s “ immediate ” experience of the
divine, and in the cult of religious moralism. This formed the dominant
spiritual clhnate of the nineteenth and early twentieth centmies, which
saw the great flowering of theological and philosophical subjectivism all
over Emope.

Within this spiritual climate several factors which influenced the imder-
standing of Baptism may be noted.

(a) The Evangelical Revival

The origins of this movement may be traced to the latter part of the
eighteenth century. The evangelistic urgency which it inspired gave rise
to the modern Foreign Mission enterprise. Thereby the Church was in-
calculably enriched, but some diffieulties with regard to Baptism were
accentuated. Some people preserved the insight of the Reformers that
the preaching of the Word is the living action of Christ within the Church,
convincing and converting men. Others tended to understand preaching
primarily as instruction of the mind and heart, by the help of which men
might come to an inward spiritual experience. The latter looked on the
sacraments as quite unimportant, or merely as acts through which the
converted give outward expression to their inward spiritual eondition. Thus
they lost the Reformed understanding of the sacraments as acts of God
which are both declaratory of the Gospel and instrumental in its application.

(b) The Rise of Liberalism

Liberalism represents the emergence, within the Churches of the Refor-
mation, of the humanist spirit of the Renaissance, with its stress upon the
autonomy of the reason, the freedom of the will, and the self-sufficiency of
the conscience. This meant the dominance of rational and ethical categories,
and the subordination of Christianity to “ Religion ” and morality. The
importance of theology was minimized, education and culture were sub-
stituted for the Gospel of salvation, and the Church came to be regarded

REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMISSION ON BAPTISM

largely as a social institution. Cionsequently the sacraments were acknow
ledged only for their value in popular education, as the outward, ritual
and symbolic draping of spiritual truths. This is the origin of the idea,
still widespread, that Baptism is but the picturesque presentation of a
vague conception of the divine Fatherhood.

Liberalism, however, made important contributions to the life of the
Church. (1) It rediscovered the concept of the Kingdom of God, though
it was unable properly to interpret its full Biblical significance. (2) It
focused attention on the historical Jesus, though its own categories proved
inadequate for the understanding of Him. (3) Above all. Liberal scholars
led the way in the field of Biblical study. All of these have a direct bearing
upon the recovery of the Biblical doctrine of Baptism.

Of all the movements in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, this
has the most far-reaching importance where Baptism is concerned. It
initiated the most exhaustive scientific research into the Christian docu-
ments that has ever been undertaken. At first this operated largely with
rationalistic and subjectivist presuppositions, and led to a presentation of
Jesus and the Gospel in terms of nineteenth-century idealism and sub-
jectivism, but the more rigorously scientific the study bas become the more
has it been driven to interpret the New Testament in the light of its own
inherent unity, and this has led to an exegesis in which theological under-
standing is controlled by rigorous attention to the language and text.
Through these studies the Church has been brought back inescapably to
Christ Himself, as He gives Himself to us through revelation, and to a
doctrine of the Church and sacraments governed by what He has done for
us, and is still doing for us, in uniting us to Himself.

(d) The Revival of Worship

The renewal of interest in worship shown by the re-publication of John
Knox’s Book of Common Order in 1840, led to the production of many
Service Books. Unlike much of the litm-gical revival in England, this
was not a movement of romantic self-expression. The emphasis was laid
on the primacy of God’s action to which we respond in praise and prayer,
though it must be admitted that the movement did not escape the prevailing
subjectivism, as many of the hymns of the period clearly show. The
reappropriation of the Church’s rich inheritance in Knox’s Book of Common
Order, and in the Westminster Directory helped to restore the sacraments
to their proper place in the worship of the Church. The sacraments were
again seen as means of grace through which, in their union with the Word
preached, Christ acts upon His people to heal and renew them, and to
lift them up in Himself into fellowship with the divine life and love. It
must, however, be admitted that this revival of worship was not able to
free itself altogether from the false Roman conception of indwelling grace,
which had come back into the Church through pietistic influences. Con-
sequently these Service Books occasionally speak of inward grace as some-
thing channelled through the sacraments, as do also some of the hymns
of the period.

(e) The Continuing Tradition

Throughout the nineteenth century the Church continued to be schooled
in the catechetical teaching of the Westminster divines, while doctrinal
instruction in the colleges and divinity halls was still given in the tradition
of scholastic Calvinism. As time went on this Calvinism was corrected
to some extent by the renewed study of Calvin himself and of the Bible,

BEPOBT OF THE SPECIAL COMMISSION ON BAPTISM

and the Westminster teaching on the sacraments was re-examined in the
light of the teaching of John Knox, Robert Bruce, and indeed Thomas
Boston. Thus the old Presbyterian tradition continued to have a strong
influence imtil the beginning of this century. The combination of this
continuing tradition with the movements and tendencies noted above
provided distinct variations in the general tradition of the Church.

2. THE SECESSION AND U.P. TRADITION

(a) The Original Secession Testimony

The Original Secession Testimony of 1827 and 1842 continued to be
normative for this branch of the Chmch until its eventual re-union. The
teaching about the sacraments in the Testimony has two chief characteristics.

(1) “ The primary end of the sacraments is, the confirmation on the part
of God of His grant to us of all the blessings of His covenant ; whereas
the primary end of social vowing, is the confirmation on our part of our
allegiance to Him, and our joint adherence to His cause ” (II. xvii. iii. 2).

(2) “ Both the sacraments of the New Testament represent and seal Christ,
and all the benefits of the covenant of grace to believers ” (II. xviii. ii.).
That is to say, the sacraments have to do with God's act and are His con-
firmation rather than our act of adherence, and they are directly related
to Christ. Although this is true of both sacraments, “ Baptism is more
especially the sign and seal of the remission of our sins, and the acceptance
of our persons, through the blood and righteousness of Christ, and of the
regeneration of our hearts by His Holy Spirit ” (ih.). The Testimony then
adds “ to assert that Baptism with water is regeneration, or remission of
sins, is to confound the sign with the things signified by it ; that though
an external means of salvation, and on that accoimt not to be unnecessarily
omitted, yet it is not essential to salvation ; — that not only those who
profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to Him, but also the infants
of such as are members of the visible Chruch are to be baptized ; — that
Baptism is rightly administered by sprinkling ; and that, from the nature
of the ordinance, it should be dispensed in public, and in connection with
the administration of the Word ” (^6.).

In justification of the Baptism of infants the Testimony cites and ex-
pounds the passages from the Gospels and the Epistles discussed in the
Commission’s 1955 Report and in the volume. The Biblical Doctrine of
Baptism. In justification of the rite of sprinkling it points out that this
mode of Baptism is greatly favoured by the analogy of the sprinkling of
blood used in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where “ our Lord’s blood, not
only in allusion to the type, but probably with an express reference to
the mode of Christian Baptism, is called ‘ the blood of sprinkling ’ ” {ib.).
The whole intention of the Testimony was to keep the Church close to the
teaching of the Westminster standards ; but it becomes clear that the
actual practice of Baptism left much to be desired, for in the “ Act for
Renewing the Covenants ” acknowledgment is made “ that we have not
duly made use of the sacraments, as seals of the covenant of grace and
of the promises therein made to us in Christ. In offering our children to
the Lord in Baptism, we have not been suitably affected with our own
and oiu children’s defilement by original guilt and corruption ; we have
not duly considered and esteemed the free love and grace of God, which
has opened to us, and to our seed, a foimtain for sin and imcleanness ;
nor been duly concerned that they might be regenerated and imited to
Christ.”

REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMISSION ON BAPTISM

(b) Principal David S. Cairns

The following passage from the unpublished papers of the late Principal
D. S. Cairns, D.D., is noteworthy ; —

“ Here above all, we have the example of Jesus Himself, who, we are
told, when children were brought to Him, took them in His arms and
blessed them, and said ‘ Of such is the Kingdom of God.’ Here we have
indubitable history. If He did this with His hrnnan body of flesh and
blood, ought not the Christian Church which is His body, to do it too ?
But if Baptism means the commrmication of the Holy Spirit, can we think
of such a gift being communicated to a child, who as yet can neither speak
nor think nor believe ? We cannot do so, certainly, if we subjectivize
the gift of the Spirit, and interpret it as meaning simply our human know-
ledge of God. But if it be an objective reality, why should one not think
of it as being given to a child in answer to the prayer of its parents and the
Christian commrmity to which it is admitted ? The germs of the direst
temptations and sins are present in the yoimgest child. Why should we
be compelled to believe that God’s Spirit may not, also, be waiting from
the first in the unfolding consciousness for its full appropriation ? The
contrary view seems to me logically to imply that the child must normally
grow up away from God and that prayer for infant children cannot avail.”

(o) Church Practice

In Presbyterian Forms of Service, issued by the U.P. Church in 1891,
the address insists that “ This ordinance is the sign and seal not of anything
man can accomplish, but of what God alone can do.” Similarly, in the
second order it is declared that “ the washing with water in the name of
the Holy Trinity is at once a sign of grace, a pledge of grace, and a means
of grace.” It is because the proper stress is laid upon God’s act of grace
that children so baptized “ are recognized by Baptism as members of the
visible Church.” Four reasons are given for the Baptism of children :
God declares that children are included in His Covenant ; our Lord Jesus
Christ says that they are of the Kingdom of Heaven ; the Apostle Peter
testifies that the promise is not only to believers but also to their children ;
the Apostle Paul testifies that the children of believers are holy unto the
Lord.”

What the Baptism of children means is well summed up in the following
prayer :

“ Almighty and most merciful Father, who claimest the children as
Thy heritage, and who hast established an everlasting covenant with Thy
people and with their offspring, we beseech Thee graciously to receive
and bless this little child, whom his parents now dedicate to Thee. As
we, in Thy name, baptize him with the Baptism of water, do Thou, in the
fulness of Thy grace, endow him with the gift of Thy Holy Spirit. Accept
him for Thine own possession ; set upon him the consecrating seal of Thy
Covenant ; and evermore endue him with Thy heavenly grace ; that to
his life’s end he may glorify Thee in his body and spirit, which Thou hast
redeemed through Jesus Christ.”

It is noteworthy that while the element of union with Christ is clearly
taught, the actual content or the thing signified in Baptism is regarded as
an inward experience rather than as the objective fact which has already
taken place in Christ. The focusing of attention upon the subjective rather
than the objective element makes Baptism attain its meaning in a present
endowment of the Spirit leading to an experienced new birth in the future.
This stress upon the new bjrth is a prominent feature of the baptismal

REPORT OP THE SPECIAL COMMISSION ON BAPTISM

teaching in this tradition. “ We are all born inclined by nature to evil.
In order to be saved we need, by Divine grace, to obtain regeneration,
faith, repentance. Hence our Lord Jesus Christ has said. Except a man
be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of
God. The water of Baptism symbolizes the Divine grace which blots out
our sins ; but that grace, if it is to be efficacious in us, must ever be received
with the faith which the Holy Spirit imparts ; for, as the Apostle Peter
reminds us, the Baptism which saves is not the putting away of the filth
of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God ” (Order for
the Baptism of Adults).

3. THE FREE CHURCH TRADITION

After 1843 the Free Church sought to renew its theology and to build
up its life by a fresh study of its classical sources. These were found not
so much in the writings of the Reformers as in those of the scholastic
Calvinists of the Westminster period and the Federal theologians on the
Continent. This tended to raise in an acute form the tensions which the
eighteenth century had failed to resolve. Thus a reassertion of hyper-
Calvinism and predestinationism clashed with the moralism and semi-
Pelagianism that had grown out of the notion of the Covenant as a contract
— i.e., there was a renewed conflict between those who maintained irresistible
grace and particular election on the one hand, and those who believed in
a strictly conditional offer of the Gospel requiring active human co-operation
for the efficacy of grace on the other. This revived Federalism, however,
could only lead to the same moralism and semi-Pelagianism as before.
These in turn became a seed-bed for Liberalism. It is these internal tensions
that are the ultimate reason for the independent survival of splinter Churches
stemming from the Disruption.

The effect of the tension between hyper-Calvinism and moralism upon
the doctrine of Baptism is reflected in the Service Books produced as recently
as in the early years of this century. Meanwhile the development of Biblical
research had opened up the way for a critical reconsideration of the diffi-
culties inherent in Federalism. During the decades of Liberal ascendency.
Biblical studies tended towards a superficially symbolic and moralistic
understanding of the sacraments, but the profounder and more scientific
Biblical teaching of great scholars like James Deimey, H. A. A. Kennedy,
and William Manson radically altered the picture, and laid a basis for a
deeper appreciation of Biblical and Reformed doctrine.

(a) Andrew A. Bonar

Andrew A. Bonar may be chosen as representative of the group of
strong evangelicals in the Free Church. His pamphlet, A Brief View of
Baptism Opened up and Applied, was published in October 1844.

His approach has the almost inevitable tendency to make adult Baptism
the norm, and to direct attention towards the cognitive aspect of it, stress-
ing the need for active human co-operation in order that grace may be
effective. Infant Baptism becomes hard to interpret, and there is an
unresolved tension between adult and infant Baptism in Bonar’s exposition.

Baptism is the sign and seal of our union with Christ in His death and
resurrection — a imion which is claimed by all who believe. The water of
Baptism signifies the blood of Christ, and the baptized person’s union
with the water represents his spiritual union with Christ, whose blood
cleanses the soul, as water cleanses the body (pp. 4, 9).

The blood is the life of the Substitute taken for us, and it is through
the death of Christ that the Wrath of God is quenched, and all the blessings

REPORT or THE SPECIAL COMMISSION ON BAPTISM

are made cure. It is the reality of these blessings which is attested by
Baptism, and also the reality of God’s willingness to give an all-sufficient
righteousness freely, through union with Christ in His death (p. 10 f.).
“ See, says God, this is what you need and I freely give ; and that you
need it and that I give it freely, behold the seal of the King ” (p. 11).

All who belong to Christ have a right to receive Baptism, but a man
must be a believer in heart, and not merely a baptized man, if he is to be
saved. It is not from his Baptism that he receives salvation. All Baptism
does is that it attests the willingness of God to save.

The Lord gives the sign and seal of Baptism to all who belong to Himself,
because He loves them personally ; but He also gives it to the children
of believing parents, for the love He bears the parents. Ever since Abraham
got the seal of circumcision, it has been a principle that the infants of
believing parents are to be offered whatever their parents obtained (p. 13).
Hence Peter can say, “ The promise is unto you and to your children.”
There is no argument used against the fitness of infant Baptism which
might not have been used to dissuade Jewish parents from circumcising
their children (p. 12).

Bonar observes that doubts concerning infant Baptism are based on
a wrong comparison of this sacrament with the Lord’s Supper. The Supper
does require faith in the recipients, but in Baptism “ the Lord Himself
brings forward the blessing. . . . The Lord is He who is active in this
sacrament ; the baptized one is wholly recipient. The sign and seal of
Baptism are meant to declare the Lord’s feelings towards the individual,
and surely He may do so towards an infant as much as towards an aged
person ” (p. 14).

What does the Lord do for the child ? “ These swaddling bands wrap

a sinner. . . . The child new-born has a depraved heart and will manifest
self-will and ungodliness very soon.” Nevertheless the Lord comes forward
to the little child of His believing servants bringing blessing (p. 16 f.).
He does not say He will take away its original sin, or regenerate its soul.
In tens of thousands of cases it is clear that this has not happened in Baptism.
Yet it may happen. “ The Lord may do it indeed in the case of some,
bending the twig towards Himself in that solemn hour ; and He might
be expected to do it far oftener, if the number of believing parents was
greater ” (p. 17).

What He always does is to show the child His goodwill by specially
selecting it to receive the sacrament. He declares that His scheme of
salvation is so free that it can reach to this child. “ He can save it —
though it cannot utter thanks, though it cannot even requite Him by one
conscious smile of gratitude ” (p. 18). He shows a particular readiness to
bless that child and He keeps a special eye on it ever after (p. 19). “ If

one of these baptized ones die in infancy, rest your sorrowful souls on Him
who expressed such desire towards your child. What could He mean
by showing it all this kindness, and then quickly taking it away ? Surely
He meant to give it heaven before it could refuse ” (p. 19).

(b) James Bannerman

The Free Church, in seeking to be as faithful as possible to the West-
minster Standards, produced theologians of great power such as William
Cunningham, James Bannerman, Robert S. Candlish, James S. Candlish,
and John Macpherson, whose teaching was set forth not only in works for
theologians but also in the famous Handbooks for Bible Glasses which had
a widespread influence. They were opposed both to Tractarian views of
sacramental grace and to Socinian and Baptist views of faith. There was,
however, a difference among the theologians themselves which helps us

REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMISSION ON BAPTISM

to see tlie tlifficiilties involved. A comparison of the teaching of James
Bannerman and James S. Candlish will bring this out.

In The Church of Christ, (1868) Bannerman worked out a general definition
of the sacramental principle, and then sought to apply it to the two Gospel
sacraments. This had the advantage of treating Baptism as a sacrament
in the full sense, like the Lord’s Supper, but it meant that the exposition
of Baptism, notably as applied to infants, had to be squared with an
abstract definition already laid down. This proved so difficult that some
modification of it was required in its application to infants — a weakness
frankly admitted by Bannerman. This represents a direct departure from
the teaching of John Knox and his Book of Common Order (cf. 1958 Report,
p. 12 ff.).

Bannerman describes Baptism imder four aspects : — -

(i) Baptism “ is a positive institution of Christ in His Church,” and
cannot therefore be regarded as dispensable or indifferent {op. cit., vol. ii.,
p. 42 f.).

(ii) Bajitism “ is an external and sensible sign of an internal grace, a
spiritual truth embodied in outward action ” (p. 44 f.). The contrast between
inner and outer, invisible and visible, is made much wider than in the
teaching of the Reformers. Together with this goes a tendency to speak
of “ sacramental grace ” and of “ indwelling grace ” which is too close to
the Roman conception ; but in order to avoid any ex opere operato con-
ception of its efficacy, sacramental grace is expomided only in cognitive
terms — -i.e., as instruction, representation of truth, confirmation, assurance,
&c. Within this w'ay of speaking the old teaching is set forth.

(iii) Baptism is “ a seal of a federal transaction between two parties in
the ordinance ” (p. 46).

(iv) Baptism “ is a means for confirming the faith of the believer and

adding to the grace which he possessed before ” (p. 49). The real importance
of these words comes out in the explication : “If the believer’s part of
the transaction be the embodiment in the outward sign of the spiritual
act whereby he dedicates himself to Christ, — and if Christ’s part of the
transaction be the giving of Himself and His grace to the believer in return,
then it is plain that the ordinance, so imderstood, must be a divinely in-
stituted means of grace to the parties who rightly partake of it ” (p. 49).
This being the case, it is very difficult to apply Baptism to infants with
the same meaning, for, as Bannerman puts it. Baptism is “ a seal of more
than the covenant generally ; it is a seal of the covenant in its appropriation
by the believer to himself personally in the ordinance ” (p. 107). This
can be extended to infants only on a severely forensic interpretation of
Baptism, which Bannerman carries through in three main contentions :
(a) “ Baptism in the case of all infants baptized gives to them an interest
in the Church of Christ as its members ” (p. 112). “ Baptism does not

constitute him a member of the kingdom of heaven, but it brings him to
the very door, and bids him there knock and it shall be opened unto him ”
(p. 113). (6) “ Baptism, in the case of all infants baptized, gives them a

right of property in the covenant of grace ; which may in after life, by
means of their personal faith, be supplemented by a right of possession ”
(p. 113 f.). Baptism is thus the charter or title to property in Christ, but
“ in itself it is incomplete and inadequate to put him into personal possession
of his heritage ” (p. 1 14). (c) “ There seems to be reason for inferring that,
in the case of infants regenerated in infancy, Baptism is ordinarily cormected
with that regeneration” (p. 117). This refers for the most part to
those predestined to salvation who die before emerging from infancy.
In their case the saving change in their natures is intimately connected with
Baptism.

REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMISSION ON BAPTISM

Three comments may be made on the teaching of Bannerman : —

(i) The ordinance of Baptism is represented as a purely forensic, judicial
transaction between two contracting parties, in which on the promise of
God certain rights are made over in return for certain prescribed responses.

(ii) The spiritual content of Baptism is in all cases an experience in
the soul or nature of the baptized— -in the case of adults this is prior to
Baptism, in the case of infants it usually follows it, though it may in some
instances be concomitant with it. Baptism is not viewed as the objective
reality which has once and for all taken place in Christ. What has taken
place in Christ is only the groimd upon which the conditional offer of grace
is made in the ordinance of Baptism.

(iii) The grace given in Baptism is not thought of as wholly identical
with the person and work of Christ towards us and on our behalf, but as
something conditioned by the reciprocal action of those to whom it is
directed. Bannerman takes great pains to attack the notion of the efficacy
of the sacraments foimd in Roman and Tractarian theology, on the ground
that the Church cannot dispense divine grace, for that would mean that
it could control it. His own view, however, is open to the same charge since,
in effect, he makes the operation of divine grace depend on human response,
and so gives to man implicit control over grace. (This was precisely the
criticism of Richard Baxter made by Fraser of Brea, and of the Jesuit
Molina made by the Reformed theologians on the Continent.) Bannerman’s
error is in effect that he denies the freedom and sovereignty and uncon-
ditional nature of God’s grace. The Federal theologians had sought to
extricate themselves from this charge by insisting on the absolute nature
of predestination, for only those who were elected so to do co-operated
savingly with divine grace. This, however, involved the imtenable cleavage
between the unconditional covenant of redemption and a conditional
covenant of grace. The root of the trouble lay in the false Mediaeval notions
of grace still lurking in the Church. These notions later came under heavy
attack from James Denney, H. A. A. Kennedy, and John Oman,

A striking contrast to Bannerman’s teaching is found in the widely
influential work of James S. Candlish of Glasgow. This is found in his
Bible Class Handbook on The Sacraments and in a collection of his lectures
posthmnously issued in 1899 under the title The Christian Salvation. In
Candlish’s thinking the abstract Federal idea is replaced by a more Biblical
conception of the covenant will of God the Father. He wills to adopt us
as His children in and through the person and work of His Son. Candlish
consequently develops a fuller and stronger doctrine of the Church as the
fellowship of those who are united to Christ as His Body. He insists that
there is only “ one Church which in different aspects is invisible and visible.”
The sacraments are therefore related directly to Christ and His Church
through the Spirit, and a personal relation of imion and communion takes
the place of a merely forensic relation. The sacraments are not expoimded,
as in Bannerman, in terms of a general sacramental principle, but as the
two Gospel sacraments in terms of their relation to Christ and His work.
Candlish objects to the teaching of Cunningham and Bannerman that
adult Baptism must be adopted as the norm and infant Baptism expounded
as an abnormal modification of it, and so he returns to the teaching of the
Reformers and of the Early Church. We may summarize his teaching as
follows : —

(i) Baptism and the Lord’s Supper

The sacraments “ represent Christ and His work of salvation not merely
objectively in itself, but subjectively in its application to the believer. . . .

REPOBT OF THE SPECIAL COMMISSION ON BAPTISM

This ajiplication has two parts or sides, one in which man is passive or
acted upon by God’s Spirit, and the other in which being acted upon he acts
also himself. These tw'o asjiects are presented to us in the two sacraments
of the New Testament resiiectively, and serve to explain their leading
differences. In Baptism, as in circumcision, we have an outward action
in which the subject is passive — he is washed in water ; in the Lord’s
Snjiper, as in the Passover, we have one in which the subject is necessarily
active — he eats and drinks. The former, therefore, approximately repre-
sents that moment or stage in spiritual life in which the soul is simply
acted upon by the Spirit, which is distinctively called regeneration ; the
latter, that in which the soul is active, which is repentance, faith, and the
new life. These two are different in some important respects, and together
they give a complete view of the way in which we are made partakers of
Christ and His benefits ” (The Christian Salvation, p. 140 ff.).

(ii) The meaning of Baptism

The general significance apparent in the action of washing with water
is the cleansing of the soul from sin. This Candlish expoimds imder four
heads : (a) “ Baptism teaches that all who are out of Christ are morally
and spiritually unclean by reason of sin ” (The Sacraments, p. 54). (6)

“ Baptism teaches that just as washing cleanses the body, so God in Christ
cleanses the soul by the Holy Spirit ” (op. cit., p. 55). (c) “ Baptism

teaches that this cleansing is only to be attained through fellowship with
the death of Christ ” (ih.). The relation of Baptism to the death of Christ,
Candlish sees to be grounded upon God’s sending of His Son in the likeness
of sinful fiesh, and for sin. that He might condemn sin in the fiesh. “ So
truly was He in the likeness of sinful fiesh that He imderwent that Baptism
at the hands of John that was a testimony of the need of cleansing ; and
by the bloody Baptism of His death He was freed from the sin of the
world that He bore, so that rising from the dead. He became a quickening
Spirit to give new life to all who enter into the fellowship of His sufferings.
Our Lord’s words speaking of His sufferings imto death as a Baptism
(Mark x. 38 f. ; Luke xii. 50) and Paul’s saying that our Baptism represents
our being buried with Christ show' that this figure of descending into death
with Christ and rising again with Him is also intended in the sacrament ;
and thus it is that it suggests the idea of our ingrafting into Christ emphasised
in the Westminster Confession and Catechisms. We can only have the
washing of regeneration by dying with Christ ; as on the other hand, if
He wash us not we have no part with Him” (John xiii. 8) (op. cit., p. 56).
(d) “ Baptism teaches that by this process of death with Christ and new
birth, we become His as our Lord and God. We are baptized unto the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost : we are sanctified
to Him as a people specially His own. . . . He is thus a God to us as the
Three-One Jehovah : in the person of the Father, over us, as our Father
in Heaven ; in the person of the Son, wuth us, as our brother and leader ;
in the person of the Holy Ghost, in us, as the principle of our new life ” (ib.).
To this Candlish adds two important statements : (1) There is one Baptism,
by which we are incorporated not into any local or sectional Church only,
but into the one holy Catholic Church of Christ. Baptism is the great
symbol of the unity of the Church of Christ imder her one head. (2) The
things signified by Baptism are the great fundamental truths of the Gospel
(op. cit., p. 57).

(iii) The Efficacy of Baptism

Baptism “ is a token of the great and precious objective truth, that the
whole of that complete deliverance from sin, and eternal life are in Christ
Jesus ” (op. cit., p. 60). Baptism is certainly related to Christian experience

REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMISSION ON BAPTISM

but when we remember the fulness of its meaning and its gromiding in the
whole objective work of Christ, we see that the experience appropriate
to it is one that covers the whole of the Christian life, and this is what is
meant by regeneration in its wide and comprehensive Biblical sense {ih.).
Candlish points out that “ the theory that assigns a direct and causal
efficacy to the outward rite has often led to a restriction of the meaning
of it, so as to make this theory more consistent with experience ” {The
Christian Salvation, p. 150). By returning to an interpretation of Baptism
in terms of its objective reality in Christ Himself, and therefore in terms of
the fulness of the Gospel of what God has already done for us in Christ,
Candlish does not assert that Baptism has any efficacy other than that
which has already been accomplished in Christ, and does not therefore
speak of “ sacramental grace ” as something other than, or in addition to,
the objective reality of our salvation in Christ. In this way Candlish
delivers Baptism from the narrow and restricted meaning given to it by
Romanists, Federalists, and others who define its significance by what they
believe it can effect within the child at the moment of its administration.

At the same time Candlish recovers the true meaning of the term
“ exhibit ” as used by the Reformers and the Westminster divines : it
denotes “ not merely showing but bestowing or applying ” {The Sacraments,
p. 39 ; The Christian Salvation, p. 150 f.).

Again, because the efficacy of grace is not separable from Clirist Himself,
Candlish does not fall into the net of semi-Pelagianism. Christ actually
fulfils what He promises, since He who gives the pledge is the Amen, the
faithful and true witness, who cannot lie or deceive. Faith is required,
but “it is the work of God’s Spirit and not of our own free will to apply
to us the benefits purchased by Christ ” {The Christian Salvation, p. 152).
Thus the sovereignty of God’s grace is remarkably represented in Baptism,
in which we are passive subjects {ib., p. 142). Baptism also requires and
demands obedience and holy resolve on our part, but “ this aspect of
Baptism, though real and important, is in its nature posterior and sub-
ordinate to the other. It is first and chiefly a pledge or token on the part
of God in Christ to us ; and only secondarily, though not less really, a pledge
or token on our part of our allegiance to God ” {The Sacraments, p. 62 f.).

(iv) Infant Baptism

According to Candlish, objection to infant Baptism “ rests upon the
erroneous assumption that Baptism is a sign and seal of the personal salvation
of those who receive it ” {op. cit., p. 67). His defence of infant Baptism
can be summarized thus : (a) “ There is nothing symbolized in it of which
infants are not capable. It represents that part of the application of
redemption in which man is passive, namely, regeneration, and not that
in which he is active, namely, faith and repentance. Now infants are
capable of regeneration ” {The Christian Salvation, p. 163). This does not,
of course, mean that Candlish taught what is commonly known as
“ baptismal regeneration ” — viz., that the act of baptizing causes regeneration
through conferring sacramental grace. Candlish’s essentially Biblical under
standing makes such a notion impossible for him (cf. op. cit., p. 169 ff.).
(6) “ God’s Covenant with His people ever included children as well as
themselves ; and He has given special promises that if parents, believing
in Christ and walking with God in Him, faithfully and prayerfully bring
up their children, they too will be regenerated by the Spirit (Prov. xxii. 6 ;
Is. xliv. 3:5; Eph. vi. 4) ” {ib.). Such promises are not to be so interpreted
as though they limited the sovereign and free grace of God, who has mercy
on whom He will, (c) “ He reaffirms the statement of the Westminster
Confession that “ the efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of
time wherein it is ministered.”

REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMISSION ON BAPTISM

(d) The Tension Between Reformation and Federal Theology

Candlish’s understanding of Baptism can be fairly summed up by saying
that it is the sacrament of God’s Fatherly adoption of us into sonship in
and through Jesus Christ. In this he was influenced by his father, Principal
B.. S. Candlish of New College, Edinburgh, who had sought to formulate
a better doctrine of adoption because, as he declared, the statements on
this subject in the Westminster Confession and Catechisms were “by no
means satisfactory ” {The Fatherhood of God, 5th edit., p. 194).

As Thomas Boston, more than a century earlier, working within the
framework of the Federal Theology, had sought to restore to its full place
the whole concept of imion with Christ, so R. S. Candlish, also working
within the forensic thought of the Federal scheme, sought to recover the
Biblical teaching of adoption into a filial relation with the Father through
participation in the hicarnate sonship of the eternal Son. This involved
restoring the doctrine of the Incarnation to a central place in theology
which it had lost in the forensic scheme.

Christ was God’s Son not only in His divine nature but also in His
hrnnan nature, which He assmned for us, and in which He lived out a
life of perfect obedience to the Father. By being given to share in His
hrnnan nature, we are brought into a sonship which is the essence and
goal of the Christian life. This sharing in Christ’s sonship involves a close
analogical relation between our new birth in Christ and His miraculous
birth into our humanity. By His birth a new humanity was born, in
which, through the operation of the Spirit, we are given to share.

R. S. Candlish was attacked by Professor Crawford of the University
Facidty in Edinburgh, who taught that there is a universal Fatherhood
of God and a imiversal sonship prior to “ evangelical sonship.” Crawford
liad no difficulty in finding support for his arguments in the writings of
William Cunningham (1805-1861) who had already attacked Calvin because,
in his teaching on the Lord’s Supper, he had sought to show “ a real influence
exerted by Christ’s human nature upon the souls of believers ” (Cimning-
ham. The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation, p. 240). As a
Federal theologian, committed to a purely forensic conception of atonement
and justification, Cuimingham was unable to acknowledge the saving
significance of the humanity of Christ, and therefore the intrinsic importance
of rniion with Christ in His hrnnan nature. All that a Federal theologian
can consistently bring himself to say is that “ in imion with God’s own
Son as a public person in His office as Mediator, an honorary standing of
sonship that is inamissible is conferred on those for whom the way to this
rank is opened in their acceptance as they are justified by the Blood of
Christ and who are prepared for the life of sons by their New Birth and
the sealing by the Spirit of the Son ” (John MacLeod, Scottish Theology,
p. 274).

Here is exposed the contradiction between the post- Westminster
Calvinism, with its severely abstract and forensic categories, and the
Calvmistic teaching of the Scottish Reformers. The same contradiction
lies at the root of the present-day confusion in our Church with regard to
Baptism. Nowhere is this clearer than in the work of the great James
Denney. He abandoned the abstract schematism of the Federal theology
with its impersonal conception of grace and unbiblical doctrine of a limited
atonement, and gave the doctrine of the person and work of Chi'ist para-
moimt place once again. Under Ritschlian influence he replaced the
abstract legal relationship by a moral one, and failed to appreciate the old
doctrine of Robert Bruce (cf. his Sermons on the Sacraments) which was
being reaffirmed by his colleague J. S. Candlish. In his commentary on
Romans vi., Denney insists that “ the requirements of the passage demand
the idea of an actual imion to, or incorporation in, Christ,” and so, on

REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMISSION ON BAPTISM

exegetical grounds, regrets the Federal interpretation which construes
it in piuely judicial terms (cf. 1958 Report, p. 60). When he came to
work this out in relation to the sacraments, Denney frankly admitted
that he was perplexed {The Christian Doctrine of Reconciliation, p. 314 ff.).
His only way out was to give it a purely cognitive interpretation based
upon the text, “Reckon yourselves dead unto sin, but alive to God in
Christ Jesus.” “ Apart from this self-reckoning, which when real is simply
faith’s identification of itself with the Saviour, all this about union with
the death and resurrection of Christ in Baptism is meaningless ” {ib., p. 317).
In this interpretation Denney completely reversed the meaning of the
Apostle, who commanded us to reckon ourselves to be dead in Christ and
alive again because already and objectively we are so, in Christ, through
what Christ has done on our behalf after assuming us mto Himself. In
contradiction to this Demiey made the meaning of death and resurrection
rest upon the subjective act of self-reckoning. This was precisely what
Candlish had sought to show could not be done.

Denney was rightly concerned to teach a doctrine of Baptism that
would give faith its full and proper place. “ Baptism and faith are but
the outside and inside of the same thing ” {The Death of Christ, p. 185 ;
The Christian Doctrine of Reconciliation, p. 316). What he was unable to
do was to find a way of stating St Paul’s doctrine of union with Christ
in Bajitism which leaves full room for faith. The reason for this failure
may well lie in the fact that imder the influence of the Ritschlian theology
Denney was still conceiving faith in intellectual and moral terms. Precisely
at this point Denney’s greatest pupil, the late William Manson, differed
from his teacher, and took the side of Calvin, Bruce, the Candlishes, and
H. R. Mackintosh.

(e) Church Practice

There can be little doubt that for many ministers, at least towards the
end of the nineteenth and in the first decades of the twentieth centuries.
Baptism was little more than “ a visible sermon,” whose real purpose was
to be an educational pledge on the part of the parents and the congregation.
The idea that Baptism is essentially an ordinance of the Gospel was in
abeyance, but there was an attempt to recover a fuller and more adequate
imderstanding of Baptism in view of Socinian and Baptist attacks upon it.
An example of this is the tract on Infant Baptism by James Lumsden,
published by the Free Presbytery of Arbroath in 1856. This shows the
influence of the Catechisms of Geneva and Heidelberg as well as the West-
minster ones, and also that of Calvin’s Institutes and of Robert Bruce’s
Sermons on the Sacraments which Cunningham had recently republished.

Baptism was regarded by Lumsden not only as signing and sealing
but as actually applying Christ and His benefits to the child. This is
done not only through the parents but directly through the work of the
Spirit in the life and growth of the child after Baptism. In accordance
with the requirements of the Federal Theology, the evangelical offer in
Baptism is regarded as made only “ conditionally ” and “ hypothetically.”

The persistence of this latter element made a somewhat superficial
view of the sacrament inevitable. This may be seen in the first Service
Books issued in the Free Church vmder the convenership of Dr D. Banner-
man, the son of Professor James Bannerman : A New Directory for the
Public Worship of God (1898) and Directory and Forms for Public Worship
(1909). These books lay the emphasis not so much on the divine action
in Baptism as on the act of the parents in presenting and dedicating the
child, and the act of the congregation in receiving him into membership
of the Church. The prayers in these books are better than their foi-mal

Itj REPORT OP THE SPECIAL COMMISSION ON BAPTISM

statements of doctrine, and show the Father-child relationship prevailing
over the abstract Federal relationship — -an mdication that the worshipping
and praying Chm'ch is often better than its theology.

In the Book of Common Order, 1928, issued by the U.F. Chm’ch under
the convenership of Dr Millar Patrick, who stood in the tradition of the
yoimger Baimerman, there is a still closer approximation to the classical
Service Books of the Church of Scotland. Baptism is the divine ordinance
which declares to us that Cod om’ Father, who has redeemed us by the
sacrihce of Christ, is also the God and Father of om* children. It is only
m the prayers that God’s direct action towards the child is mentioned.
Elsewhere, instead of speaking directly of the relation of the child to
Christ and His work, it says that the children belong, with us who believe,
to the membersliip of the Church through the covenant made in Christ,
and confirmed to us by God in this sacrament, which is a sign and seal
of our cleansing, of our ingrafting into Clirist, and of our welcome in the
household of God.

In the order for the admmistration of Holy Baptism to adults, washing
and engraftmg and regeneration are applied directly to the baptized, but
this is interpreted as a mutual act in which God grants hun assurance in
the sacrament while he seals his covenant with God. Thus none of the
teaching of James Candlish seems to have been carried over into the form
of administration of Baptism. It should be remembered, however, that
tins Service Book was a product of the Liberal reaction after the First
World War, when Reformed theology was at its lowest ebb m Scotland.
Nevertheless the Reformed and evangelical theology of the Free Church
continued to exercise a wide influence through the teaching of men like
H. R. Mackintosh, and this eventually bore fruit in more adequate doctrine
such as we see m the late D. M. Baillie’s Theology of the Sacraments (1957).

4. THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND TRADITION

The general tendencies m the Established Church are not so easy to
describe, but three distinct lines of tradition are discernible : (1) A strong
core of the old evangelical tradition remained. Tins combined the evangelical
and sacramental emphases and developed more and more in a Biblical
direction. Among its most notable men may be mentioned Daniel Dewar
and William Milligan. (2) There was a revival of Westminster Calvinism
tending, as in the eighteenth century, to break into two strands — a hyper-
Calvinism and a modified Calvinism — each showing a strong strand of
rationalism. In this tradition Baptism was given a severely cognitive
interpretation corresponding to a highly inteUectualist conception of faith.
(3) There was also, after the Disruption, a considerable revival of High
Chmch Calvinism. The movement appears to have two main emphases :
a return to Calvin’s emphasis upon the sovereignty of the divine Word
and Act, calling forth man’s response in gratitude and praise, and a view
of the means of grace, more Augustinian and Mediaeval than Reformed,
under the influence of the Tractarians and of the Church historians. There
resulted from this a strong Calvmist tradition, consciously depending on
Ivnox’s Book of Common Order and the Westminster Directory, with a more
adequate doctrme of Baptism and an evangelical view of the act of God
closely akm to the Secession and U.P. tradition. Unfortimately it operated
with a conception of grace as something that can be channelled tlirough
the orduiances of the Church, but it largely avoided the semi-Pelagianism
of the Federal Theology as well as the “ baptismal regeneration ” of the
Tractarians.

REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMISSION ON BAPTISM 17

(a) Principal Dewar

Principal Dewar of Aberdeen represents the more evangelical tradition.
His teaching is found in the third volume of his Elements of Systematic
Divinity (1866). For Dewar, Baptism is essentially “ the rite that accom-
panies the exhibition of the blessings of the Gospel and is an authoritative
sign on the part of God ” (p. 266). He did not work with a general con-
cejition of what is sacramental and then seek to apply it to the two
evangelical ordinances. He dealt directly with Baptism and the Lord’s
Supper as presented in the Biblical teaching. In discussing the history
of the doctrine, Dewar offers an interpretation of the teaching of Augustine,
citing two important passages with which he is in agreement : “ The

washing of regeneration is indeed common to all who are baptized in the
name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost ; but the grace
of regeneration, of which these are the sacraments or signs, by which the
members of Christ’s body are regenerated with their head, is not common
to all ; for heretics and false bretlu-en, m the commimion of the Catholic
name, have the same Baptism as ourselves ” (Enarr. in Ps., Ixxvii.). “ It
is clearly shown that the sacrament of Baptism is one thing, and the
conversion of the heart another. Nor, if one of these be wanting, are we
to conclude that the other is also wanting ; because there may be Baptism
without conversion, while in the malefactor on the cross, without doubt
there was conversion without Baptism. Baptism may exist where con-
version of heart is not, and conversion of heart may be where Baptism is
not ” [De Bap. iv. 25).

Dewar connects Baptism in the Biblical and Reformed manner with
the covenant, although the forensic interpretation is not to the fore. By
nature and design Baptism is a seal on God’s part of the blessing of the
Gospel in cleansing and regeneration, but “ it is the truth of God, and not
Baptism, which is the instrumental cause of regeneration ” (p. 228 f.).
“ Viewed as this divine pledge of the truth and love of God, it imiilies
that the blessings exhibited will be really communicated to all who sincerely
lay hold of the covenant.”

The nature and design of Baptism is then expoimded imder five heads : —

(i) “ Baptism is designed as an emblem to be significant of the

purification by the blood and the Spirit of Christ ” (p. 230).

(ii) “ Baptism is designed as a publie badge of the Christian pro-

fession ” (p. 231).

(iii) “ Baptism is designed to represent our imion with Christ ”

(Galatians iii. 27 ; Romans vi. 4-6, p. 232).

(iv) “ Baptism when administered to infants, is designed to show

that they are capable of being subjects of Christ’s Kingdom,

and of partaking of its blessings ” (ib.).

(v) “ It is forcibly calculated to teach that the salvation of man

is altogether of grace ” (p. 234).

Dewar’s teaching, though never very profound, performed a valuable
service in seeking a better Biblical basis for the traditional teaching, and
in modifying its hard judicial character. This was carried further by
William Milligan, whose careful exegesis of the New Testament brought
him much nearer a proper emphasis upon the grace of God in Christ Jesus.
He taught that the ground of our confidence is found directly in the divine
revelatien, and in God’s great acts of mercy towards us, and “ not in any
process of reasoning on our part or any exercise of feeling by which we
respond to the great acts of God’s mercy towards us.” Tliis is the very
truth that the sacraments are designed to inculcate. “ In them, according

KEPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMISSION ON BAPTISM

to the teaching of the New Testament and of the Standards of the Scottish
Church, Christ comes to us as much as we to Him. In them He is by
His own appointment ‘ represented, sealed, apjilied to believers.’ They
are channels of His grace so that, when we seek for assurance of salvation,
we are to find it in what He does for us, and not in any inward persuasion
of our own that we have accepted Him. Such a persuasion enthusiastic
or presumptuous persons easily find, and are too frequently 2Riff<3d up ;
the modest miss, and are too frequently thrown into despair. Christ'
Himself is with and m His sacraments, to make them not only a sign but
a seal to us of ‘ ingrafting into Christ, of remission of sins by His blood,
and regeneration by His Sjiirit, of adoption and resurrection unto eternal
life ’ ” {Larger Catechism, Q. 165) {The Ascension of our Lord, ji. 348).

(b) Thomas J. Crawford

For the Federal and rational tradition we cite as representative Professor
Thomas J. Crawford of Edinburgh University, the opjionent of Principal
R. S. Candlish. For him Bajitism is the sacramental representation of
God’s 2Jaternal kindness, which is extended to us only on the conditions,
limitations, and requirements of the Federal contract. Here once again
we have the legalism and the limitation of the sovereignty of grace against
which the Reformed evangelical tradition in the Church has consistently
23rotested. An exam2ile of Crawford’s 23osition is the following ; “ It is
true that all persons who make a credible profession of Christianity are
entitled to the sacraments, in the judgment of the visible Church. And
in regard to Baptism, the infants of professed believers share in this respect
in the outward privileges of their parents. But whether they be entitled
to the sacraments in the judgment of the Head of the Church is altogether
a different question. If He does not recognize them as being already, or
as destined ultimately to become, sincere believers, then they have no
real interest, either present or prospective, in the covenant of grace. And
accordingly the sacraments, though in due form administered to them,
are, like seals attached to a blank sheet of parchment, of no significance
and validity whatsoever ” {The Fatherhood of God, p. 261).

Crawford’s view of Baptism has two very unfortunate implications :
{a) It makes the mercy of the visible Church much wider than the mercy
of Christ, and (6) it makes the real content of Baptism what we ultimately
23ut into it, for everthing depends upon the fact that we fill in the blank
parchment. Both of these are very far removed from the Good News of
the Gospel.

Crawford has another side to his teaching which he draws from the
baptismal prayer in the W estminster Directory. This leads him to expound
Baptism as essentially “ of the nature of a 2irayer that God would have
respect imto that covenant which is sealed by it in behalf of the child to
whom it is administered ” (p. 263). The idea that Baptism is to be regarded
as an act of 23rayer goes right back to the catechisms of Craig and Calvin.
In this light, Crawford gives Baptism a more adequate interpretation.
“ What is it that is done when a person is baptized ? One of Christ’s
ministers, acting by His authority, in the presence and with the concurrence
of a Christian assemblage, applies to the baptized 2ierson the appointed
seal of the evangelical promises, in the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost. The three 2iersons of the Godhead are here solemnly
invoked to confer on the recipient of the ordinance the blessings re2iresented
by it ; and, apart from such invocations, the accom23anying action, whereby
the appointed token of the covenant is a2)lilied, is nothing less than a
symbolic prayer. Hence in baptizing a person we are virtually 2Ji'ayiug
that God would confer upon him the spiritual blessings of which his Baptism
is significant. ... It is much to be regi-etted that the extreme jealousy

KBPOKT OF THE SPBCIAE COMMISSION ON BAPTISM

felt among us of anything like the notion of an opus operatum in this sacra-
ment should have disposed many to fall into the opposite error of wellnigh
denying any efficacy to Baptism, as a means of imparting spiritual benefits
to those who receive it, and of regarding it in no higher light than that of
a mere form of admission into the visible Church. The prevalence of such
low views of the efficacy of Baptism is one of the greatest obstacles in the
way of its proving efficacious ” (p. 263 f.). The real reason why people
were so liable to fall into such poor views of the sacrament is that they
had been taught by theologians like Crawford that its efficacy depended
on themselves, and on their views of it, or what they put into it — all in
strange contradiction to the baptismal prayer itself.

Crawford’s teaching, in a more evangelical and acceptable form, is
found in W. P. Paterson (The Rule of Faith, p. 275 ff.). Paterson’s discus-
sion reveals that one of the inherent weaknesses of Protestant scholasticism
was that it tended to form its doctrine in reaction to the sacramental
doctrine of Rome. Hence “ it affirmed the efficacy of the sacraments to
be conditioned by the spiritual state of the recipient ” (p. 277). The
question how this can be applied to infant Baptism, Paterson answers by
interpreting the Reformed view that children are to be baptized because
they are within the covenant in such a way as to suggest that “ the faith
of the Church or of the parents might be vicariously accepted as a ground
of blessing ” (ih.). But is not this a form of the Roman doctrine of ‘ implicit
faith ’ ? The true view is that infants are baptized on the ground of Christ’s
own faith and faithfulness. It is He, and He alone, not the Church nor
the parents, who stands in for the child in a vicarious relationship.

The High Church Calvinist movement is well represented by A Manual
of Church Doctrine, by H. J. Wotherspoon and J. M. Kirkpatrick, the
teaching of which we now summarize : — •

(i) What a sacrament is

Wotherspoon and Kirkpatrick work with the Westminster definition of
the sacraments, but they relate it to the fulfilled covenant in Christ, that is
they relate it directly to the Dicarnation. The sacraments are ordinances
appointed for the application of redemption by the Spirit of Christ. “ The
sacraments result from the fact that salvation operates by Incarnation ;
and they import that our relation to Christ is a vital relation, embracing
our whole nature, bodily as well as spiritual ” (p. 26).

(ii) Christ is the Minister

“ The true Minister of the sacraments is Christ — i.e., the action in each
sacrament is proper to Christ alone. None but He can wash away sin, or
can give the Holy Spirit, or instil life. It is proper to Himself to show
His own death for us. He alone can give Himself for oiu food. The com-
missioned Ministry acts in His Name and on His behalf ; as the Baptist
was nothing but only a Voice, so they are but a hand by which the Lord
from Heaven carries out His proper work among us. The Ministry has
the authority to minister : the power is in Christ ” (p. 34).

(iii) The necessity of faith

Wotherspoon and Kirkpatrick join with the whole Scottish tradition
in repudiating anything like an ex opere operato conception of sacramental
efficacy. The sacraments are not effective by the mere fact of their having
been performed. “ Except to faith they are nothing, and except to the
spiritual man they are little. , . . Faith is thrown entirely upon Him ”
c

REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COBIMISSION ON BAPTISM

■ — i.e., the Holy Spirit — “to find anything at all in sacraments. They are
nothuig in the world except what He makes them ; they contain nothing
unless what is by Him imported into them. The soul coming to the sacra-
ments is compelled to look through theu’ apparatus of ‘ sensible sign ’ (as
one looks through, and not at, the glass of a window) to Christ and His
benefits, and to the operation of the Holy Ghost as He follows Christ’s
word ” (p. 36). “ To come without faith to a sacrament is not to come

to the sacrament, but only to come in a bodily way to the outward part
of the sacrament. In such a case, the spiritual part is there, and is offered
— in a sense (so far as the divine faithfulness is involved) is bestowed,
BUT IT IS NOT RECEIVED — the Spiritual in the man is not accessible to the
spiritual in the sacrament ” (p. 37).

(iv) What Baptism is

As a sacrament, Baptism “ has two parts, an outward and visible sign
and a corresponding operation of grace. It signifies and seals ; but it also
applies what it signifies. The outward part of this sacrament is washing
with water in the Name of the Holy Trinity (Gonf. of Faith, xxviii. 2). The
inward part is ‘ engrafting ’ into Christ, regeneration, remission of sins, and
giving up imto God {Gonf. of Faith, xxviii. 1 ; L. Gat., 165 ; Directory,

‘ Exhortation ’). It is not merely for the admission of the person baptized
into the visible Chiu-ch : Baptism is ‘ into Christ ’ {Gonf. of Faith, xxviii. 1).
Baptism has efficacy {Gonf. of Faith, xxviii. 6). It not only ‘offers,’ but
in it the Holy Ghost really ‘ exhibits ’ {i.e., applies) and confers the jiromised
grace” {ih.) (p. 39 f.).

(v) Baptism is the act of God

“ In Baptism the baptized jierson does nothing, but only sm’renders
hhnself to a Divine operation. True, he comes with confession of faith,
renunciation of hindrance, and promise of fidelity. But these are not
parts of Baptism ; they are conditions of Baptism — steps in the way to it.
In Baptism itself the baptized is passive ; so much so that the Scripture
compares it to the act of dying, as the extreme instance of passive yielding
into God’s hands ; or even compares it to the brnfial of the dead (Rom. vi.
3-5 ; Col. ii. 12). When, therefore, Scriptm’e speaks of this or that as done
in Baptism, it is the act of God of which it speaks, not the subsequent
response of man to that act. On the Divine side all is real and complete.
God does for us whatever is needful for our being jiut into a state of grace.
Of that we can speak confidently. There is not Yea and Nay with God
(II. Cor. i. 20). The contents attributed to Baptism are all of them acts
of God : He engrafts ; He regenerates ; He remits sin ; He calls and
‘ engages ’ us to be the Lord’s. God does it, and it is done. But nothing
is asserted as to our acceptance or use of this grace, nor of our answer to
this calling. We ought in answer to repent, to believe, to turn to God
with all our heart, to hold to Christ and to grow up into Him. But Baptism
does not ensure oirr doing of any of these things. It only calls for them
and makes them possible. No one speaks of baptismal repentance or of
baptismal conversion, for repenting and turning to God are actions which
God gives us to do, not things that God does for us. Grace may be received
in vam. What is grafted may wither. IVhat is generated may not come
to birth. What is born may die. The forgiven may go on to sin. The
son may prove prodigal and go from his father’s house. Yet the grafting,
the generating, the birth, the adoption took place. What, then, we say
of Baptism and its effect we do not say of man’s response to grace, which
is uncertain, but of God’s grace, which is sure. Much is true of Baptism
which may not be true of each baptized person ” (p. 40 ff.).

REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMISSION ON BAPTISM

^vi) Baxitism and change of status

“ The comparisons used in Scripture to explain the operations of Baptism
are such as engrafting (Rom. xi. 17-19), building (I. Pet. ii. 5 ; I. Cor. iii. 9),
adoption (Gal. iv. 5 ; Eiih. i. 5), or naturalization ” (Eph. ii. 12-13 ; Phil. iii.
20) (p. 42 f.). For Wothersjioon and Kirkpatrick the one idea behind all
these comparisons is ‘ change of status,’ and this change of status involves
“ a new birth : and the act of God in according it is compared to an act
of spiritual generation ” (John iii. 5 ; Tit. iii. 5) (p. 45). By this term
‘ generation ’ Wotherspoon and Kirkpatrick refer to the generating of
response on our part to the great redemptive acts. It is a response which
derives from the grace of God ; for without His grace we can do nothing
at all. It refers to the divine ‘ calling and election ’ or the action of God’s
Spirit upon the soul, bringing and enabling it to respond. This is what,
in the old Augustinian terminology, was Icnown as ‘ prevenient grace.’
In Baptism, therefore, the child is introduced “ into the sphere of the
Spirit’s grace and operation ” which constitutes for him a “ real opportunity.”

.(vii) The subjects of Baptism

Ghildi’en are the ideal subjects of Baptism. “ Our Lord has taught us
(Matt. xix. 14) that the little child is the ideal citizen of that Kingdom —
‘ of such ’ it consists ; and it receives them, for in seal of His words Christ
took children into His arms and blessed them — and they were blessed.
So far from the children being recpiired to depart until they shall become
adult sinners, our Lord taught that the adult must become as the little
child in order to come into the Kingdom. It was in the course of the
invitation to Baptism (Acts ii. 39) that St Peter said ‘ the promise is unto
you and to your children.’

“. . . In the child there is no resistance. ... In the Baptism of an
adult there must always be present a certain fear lest ‘ he have neither
part nor lot in that matter ’ (Acts viii. 21) — God alone knows the heart ;
but in the Baptism of a little child, thanksgiving may be unshadowed,
confident. For we know what God has therein done. The rest is still
uncertam — we cannot foresee whether this soul will ‘ work out its salvation ’
or ‘ make its calling and election sure ’ ; but we have good hope of it
through grace ” (p. 47 ff.).

(viii) The sequel of Baptism

“ Baptism is a complete sacrament : on God’s side it ensures to the
baptized ‘ all things that pertain to life and godliness.’ But it calls for
our response — ‘ a covenant is not of one ’ ; on our side we must own and
embrace its gift and obligation. While this is true in all cases, it is of course
the more obviously necessary where Baptism has been received in infancy.
The relation constituted by Baptism then requires to be completed, on
the part of the baptized, by conscious acceptance of its status ; and, on
the part of the Church, by . . . examination and preparation . . ., and that
formal act by which full consequence is given to the earlier act of their
admission into His flock. At this stage of the Christian Life we should
not only look forward to the Lord’s Table and all that iiarticipation therein
implies, but should first and foremost look back to Baptism, and desire
to perfect what concerns that, by the open confession of Christ before God
and man, and by securing from the Church recognition and confirmation
in the place which Baptism bestows ” (p. 55 f.).

(d) Church Practice

The Service Books produced in the early part of the nineteenth century,
before and after the Disruption, embodying the current teaching of the

REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMISSION ON BAPTISM

Church, all reflect the rationalized form of Federal theology held by the
moderate Churchmen. But in 1861 Robert Lee of Greyfriars, Edinburgh,
published his Prayers for Social and Public Worship, which was mildly
liturgical in form, and embodied the outlook of the broad-Churchmen.
In seeking a more liturgical form Lee went back to the prayers of the
Westfninstcr Directory, and thus reintroduced, not only in form but in content,
elements of a more adequate doctrine. The 4th edition of Lee’s book,
called The Order of Public Worship and the Administration of the Sacraments,
in its order for Baptism heavily depends upon John Knox’s Book of Common
Order, which had been regularly used until 1647, and which inspired the
reconstitution of worship in the restored Presbyterianism of 1690. Lee
reintroduced into the service the question put by Knox ; “ Do you here
present this child to be baptized, desiring that he may be engrafted into
the mystical body of Jesus Christ ? ”

The Church Service Society in Euchologion (1867) introduced still more
of the teaching and language of Knox into the bajitismal service. The
second edition of this book, however, despite its new title, A Book of Common
Order (1869), conformed less to Knox’s pattern and more to that of the
Westminster Directory. The question put at Baptism was altered to read :
“ Do you pre.sent this child to God in the holy sacrament of Baptism ? ”
and one form of instruction ran as follows : “ This sacrament thus instituted
is a holy sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of our ingrafting into Christ
and imion with Him, of remission of sins, regeneration, adoption and life
eternal. This element of water representeth both the blood of Christ,
which taketh away all the guilt of sin, and the power of the Holy Ghost
in regenerating and sanctifying our corrupt nature. And as by Baptism
we are soleimily received into the Church, we are taught, and acknowledge
thereby, that all men are born in sin, and must be cleansed by Christ’s
blood and Spirit if they would be accepted of God and admitted to His
heavenly kingdom. The Baptism of water cannot of itself effect that which
it signifies, but as it is a sign ajipointed by divine wisdom to show us our
need of heavenly cleansing, so it is also a seal whereby God confirms to
all who are baptized His promise to bestow it ; assuring them thereby
of His goodwill and love, ingrafting them into the body of Christ, receiving
them into His household, and giving them a covenant right to look to Him
as their Father, and to expect through faith all the blessings of salvation.”
These words, drawn from the old language of the Reformation and West-
minster documents, represent a remarkable combination of those two
traditions that belong to the foundation and substance of the whole Church
of Scotland. The teaching and the form contained in this order for the
administration of Baptism remained substantially the same for the remain-
ing editions, but it is worth noting that, in spite of the introduction of
certain ’ Anglican ’ elements in the sixth edition (against the protests of
S]irott, Leishman, and others), the conce23tion of grace as something that
can be channelled through the ordinances of the Church tended to disappear,
and is much less evident than in the writings of some of the theologians,
in the Free Church as well as in the Church of Scotland.

Altogether the Euchologion or A Book of Common Order went through
ten editions and sold over twenty thousand cojiies within fifty years, which
indicates the measure of its use and infiuence in the Church of Scotland.
This may also exjilain why the Church itself was so late in producing its
own Service Book, Prayers for Divine Service, authorized by the General
Assembly in 1923. Along with the Book of Common Order, 1928, of the
United Free Church, this reflects the influence of the more superficial
liberal theology of the post-war jieriod. While the language of the Larger
Catechism describing Baptism is carried over in the preamble, and the
language of the Directory of Public Worship is reflected in the prayers, the

EEPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMISSION ON BAPTISM 23

emphasis falls upon Baptism as an act of dedication — i.e., upon an act of
man towards God rather than upon God’s seal of His own act of love and
grace towards man. The Apostles’ Creed is used, as it had been in both
the Reformation and Westminster traditions (imtil it tended to be dro2ii)ed
out during the period of Episcopalian predominance in the late seventeenth
■centiu'y). The part of the service closest to the Reformation tradition is
found in the prayer after Baptism : “ We give Thee most hearty thanks
and praise, most merciful Father, that Thou hast been pleased to receive
this child into Thy Church ; and we beseech Thee that he, being ingrafted
into Christ the true Vine, may receive out of His fulness and evermore
abide in Him. Like the Holy Child, may he grow in wisdom and stature,
■and in favour with God and man. Suffer him not at any time to fall
away from Thee, but grant that, being brought u^i with faithful Christian
training, he may embrace Christ as his Saviour, and that with true and
earnest faith he may take ujion himself the vows now taken in his name,
and come to His holy Table. Grant that he may witness a good confession,
that he may be of use to Thy Church and in the world, and that, jiersevering
unto the end, he may obtain the full victory of faith, through Jesus Christ
■our Lord.”

0. THE REUNITED CHURCH OF SCOTLAND

During the last four hundred years the Church has again and again
turned back to the teaching of the Reformers and to that of the Westminster
Standards when seeking to clarify its mmd and build itself uii in the faith.
This clearly happened when Presbyterianism was restored in 1690, but
it also happened during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. In the
last hundred years exhaustive study has been given to doctrine and worshiji
in the Reformation and post-Reformation eras. This was done at a time
of imparalleled activity in historical and Biblical studies. The result was
to drive the Church, in all its branches, steadily back upon the basic doctrines.
This has been even more marked since the reunion of 1929. The coming
together of the different branches of the Church has led to a searching of
their various traditions, an examination of them in the light of Biblical
studies, and a bringing together of their jiermanent contributions in the
light of the Reformed Faith. The result is that the Church of Scotland
is growing steadily in its fresh understanding of the historic doctrines of
the faith, and of the place of worship and mission in the redeemed life of
the jieople of God.

In the Book of Common Order (1940) we see a gathering together of the
various strands of our Scottish tradition : the theological teaching of men
like J. S. Candlish and H. R. Mackintosh from the Free Church side, the
theological emphasis upon worship of men like H. J. Wothersjioon and
J. M. Kirkpatrick from the Established Church, the Christological emfihases
of the Secession tradition, the missionary orientation of men in each part
of the divided Chiuch, and not least the Biblical theology of men like William
Milligan, A. B. Davidson, James Denney, H. A. A. Kennedy, and William
Manson.

While forward steps have been taken in the sphere of worship!, the old
tensions [a) between the Christological theology of our Reformers and the
forensic tendencies of the Westminster divines, and (h) between hyper-
Calvinists and semi-Pelagian moralists, are still with us. The most clearly
marked division is that between those who value the richness of our Reforma-
tion tradition and those who still retain the attitudes of the late eighteenth
century and the nineteenth century. Many of the latter have not them-
. selves had the Biblical, doctrinal, and catechetical teaching of earlier times ;

REPORT OP THE SPECIAL COMMISSION ON BAPTISM

tliey are more concerned with “ religion ” than with the fimdamental
doctrines of the Gospel, and are more interested in Church organizations
than in prayer and public worship. Yet this situation is changing. There
are to-day signs of a real hunger for Biblical teaching, for doctrinal substance^
for informed worship, and for instructed evangelism. As a result of this
tlie old tensions are again ajipearing, and it is unfortunate that the only
tools which many people have with which to interpret what is set before
them are superficial humanistic and moralistic ideas derived from the
Renaissance rather than from the Reformation.

It is in this setting that the sacraments have come under inquiry.
James Denney once said, “ Both the sacraments are forms into which we
may put as much of the Gospel as they will carry, and St Paul, for his part,
practically puts the whole of his Gospel into each ” {The Death of Christ,
p. 137). It is in the sacraments that worship, doctrine, action, and evan-
gelism all converge. It is therefore natural that the tensions in Scottish
Church history should be so acute at this focal iioint. This means that
the problems raised for us to-day by the sacraments can only be answered
through a deeper understanding of the Gospel, for it is in the Gospel,
and not in themselves that the sacraments have their meaning. It is in
Christ that the sacraments have their substance. Only through the evan-
gelical doctrines of Christ’s Incarnation and Atonement can we resolve
our tensions, and set forth a true and faithful doctrine of Baptism adequate
to guide our worship, instruction, and evangelism.

III. THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND AND BAPTIST

TEACHING

The Declaration of Principle in the Constitution of the Baptist Union
of Great Britain and Ireland states the basis of that union to be : — ■

“ (1) That the Lord Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour, is the sole and
absolute authority in all matters 25ertaining to faith and practice,
as revealed in the Holy Scrijitures, and that each Church has
liberty to interpret and administer His Laws.

(2) That Christian Baptism is the immersion in water into the Name

of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, of those who have
professed repentance towards God, and faith in onr Lord Jesus
Christ, who ‘ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, was
buried, and rose again in the third day.’

(3) That it is the duty of every disciple to bear personal witness to

the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to take part in the evangelization
of the world.”

(Quoted in H. Wheeler Robinson, The Life and Faith of
the Bajytists, ji. 90 f.)

Like the Church of Scotland, the Bajitists look to Scrijiture for the
supreme rule of faith and life, and speak of “ the supremacy of the New
Testament in all matters of the Church’s faith ” (H. Cook, What Baptists
Stand For, p. 13). This Commission has already given careful study to
the relevant Biblical material. For the detailed discussion reference should
be made to the revised form of the Commission’s 1955 Report, now published
under the title. The Biblical Doctrine of Baptism.

A second point arising from paragraph (1) of the Declaration quoted
above must be noted. This relates to the liberty of each Church. Bajitists
hold to “ the jirinciple of the freedom of the individual Church imder

REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMISSION ON BAPTISM

Christ ” (Reply to the Lambeth Appeal by Baptist Union, 1926. Printed
in H. Cook, op. cit., pp. 177-181). The Baptist Union, through its Assembly,
could come to a majority decision, but this would not be binding upon the
individual Churches that make up the Union. There is no single universally
binding expression of the Baptist standpoint. Indeed the act of “ Baptism
by immersion takes the place amongst Baptists of a formal Creed ”
(H. Wheeler Robinson, Baptist Principles, p. 29). Thus, while Baptist
literature is immense and in some ways repetitive (Wheeler Robinson,
The Life and Faith of the Baptists, ji. 8), it also contains a great variety
of opinions, not a few of which are at variance with one another. Some
instances of this may be noted :

While paragraph (2) of the Declaration refers to immersion, and some
would hold this to be essential, it was in fact affusion which was practised
by the first English Baptists, and “ anyone who thinks that Baptists then
or now are primarily contending for the mode of immersion, does not really
know what their faith is ” (H. Wheeler Robinson, Life and Faith, p. 4).

Some Baptists practise “closed” Church membership and “closed”
communion, others practise “ open ” membership and “ ojien ” commimion,
and others again “ closed ” membership but “ open ” communion, so that
people may be welcomed to sit at the Lord’s Table who would be refused
membership in the Church (H. Wheeler Robinson, op. cit., p. 119 f. ;
E. A. Payne, Fellowship of Believers, p, 74).

Yet again there have been differences in the practice of Bajitist Churches
with regard to the infants and young children of their members. There
has been an “ increasing introduction of ‘ Dedication Services ’ in connexion
with the Church ” (H. Wheeler Robinson, Life and Faith, p. 89). Thus,
having deprived the children of believers of what we regard as their Biblical
due of Baptism, many Baptists have come to replace this with services
“ at which infants are presented, the duties, privileges and responsibilities
of parents emphasized, and the prayers of the Church offered for children
and parents ” (Reply to Lambeth Appeal). Other Baptists deny that there
is any Biblical warrant for this practice, and assert that “ a child cannot
be dedicated to God’s service until the child is old enough to dedicate itself ”
(Stalker).

Behind these and other divergencies of view there is, of course, a very
substantial agreement among Baptists ; and we can acknowledge also an
area of agreement with the Church of Scotland. We could not find serious
fault with such a statement as this, as far as it goes : —

Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by
Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, or dipped, a sign of our
entrance into the covenant of grace, and ingrafting into the body
of Christ, which is His Church ; and of remission of sin in the blood
of Christ, and of our fellowship in His death and resurrection, and
of our living, or rising to newness of life.

(Article xxviii.. The Doctrine of Baptism. Baptist World
Alliance, 1951, reaffirming the Baptist Articles of 1678.)

The influence of the Westminster Confession, to which this statement
approximates closely, was widespread, especially amongst the Particular
Baptists, and often, except where congregational independence, or believer’s
Baptism were involved. Baptist variations from it were “ mainly verbal ”
(E. A. Payne, op. cit., pp. 25 f., 64). Nevertheless certain very fundamental
differences are present. It is not to be supposed that we are in general
agreement, e.g., about the significance of the Baptism of adults, differing

REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMISSION ON BAPTISM

only as to whether sufficient grounds can be adduced for extending Baptism
to include infants. The nature of our divergence is more serious.

1. The Nature of the tffiuRCH

While their teaching and practice as regards Baptism have given the
Baptists their name, it is in fact not upon the nature of Baptism but upon
the nature of the Church that their fundamental difference from the Church
of Scotland and other branches of the Catholic Church rests. This is
clearly recognized by leading Ba^itists. “ Baptism is not in fact primary ;
it is alw’ays derivative, and depends for its meaning on the conception of
the Church which lies behind it ” (H. Cook, op. cit., p. 13). Cook also
quotes the remark of W. T. Whitley : “ The distinctive feature about the
Baptists is their doctrine of the Church ” {ib.). “ Believers’ Baptism . . .

carries with it an unmistakable definition of the Church to which it is the
door of entrance ” (H. Wheeler Robinson, Baptist Principles, p. 25).

In reply to the Lambeth Ajopeal the Baptist Union said : “ We believe
in the Catholic Church as the holy society of believers in our Lord Jesus
Christ, which He founded ” (Cook, op. cit., p. 178). The same point is
made by ^Vheeler Robinson : “ The Church is a spiritual society composed
of converted men who acknowledge the supreme Lordship of Christ ”
(Baptist Princi2)les, 25) ; and by Cook himself : “ The Church is a
society of believers and of believers only, and entrance into it is conditioned
by the free acceptance of God’s grace in Christ ” (What Ba2Uists Believe,
p. 39).

This view of the Church is defended on the ground that, just as Jesus
inaugurated a New Covenant to take the place of the Old, so He created
a New Israel, to supersede the one which had been rejected, and this New
Israel was to be gathered upon a totally different principle from that
upon which the Old Israel had been established. Men and women were
no longer to be numbered in the ecclesia of God because of birth into a
particular nation to which the promises of the covenant had been given.
They now became members of the ecclesia solely by virtue of their personal
faith in Jesus Christ, and their individual response to His call. Jesus’
saying about the rock upon which His Church is to be built refers to this
establishment of the Church upon a new principle, whereby it is the com-
munity of those only who have personal faith in Him (cf. Cook, op. cit., p. 38).

It is often claimed by Baptists that there is an adumbration of this
view of the Church in the Old Testament conception of the remnant, which
is held to denote the company of true believers within the covenant people,
sealed with the sign of circumcision (cf. H. Wheeler Robinson, Life and
Faith, p. 12 f.). In this way the Baptists not only identify the Church
with the remnant, but they turn the remnant into a visible institution,
which is never done either in the Old Testament or the New Testament.
In other words, the Baptists conceive it as “ their duty to create
a visible Church of perfect purity ” (cf. H. Wheeler Robinson, Baptist
Principles, p. 7) : and this is done, not by defining the Church primarily
by reference to Christ, and the sign of Baptism which He has given to
seal the proclamation of what He has done, but rather by defining it with
reference to those who claim to be born again, and to Baptism as the outward
expression of this experience. In the Reformed tradition the Church is
defined by a double reference. This is primarily to Christ and what He
has done antecedent to our faith and experience, and secondarily to the
faithful appropriation of the Gospel by believers. The Church is therefore
recognized as having a double frontier, marked out by the two sacraments :
Baptism being the sacramental sign and seal of what Christ has once and
for all done for the Church, grounding it in Himself, and the Lord’s Supper
being the sacramental sign and seal of all who faithfully and continually

BEPOBT OF THE SPECIAL COMMISSION ON BAPTISM

have communion with Him. Moreover the Reformed Church also acknow-
ledges that there is still another reference by which the Church is to be
defined, namely election. Therefore the Church has a third frontier, known
only to God, and it is this frontier which defines what the Bible calls the
remnant. In Baptist doctrine, however, there is a strong tendency to
make believer’s Baptism the sole frontier of the perfect visible Church,
to be recognized by God and men, though they would not go so far as to
■say that Baptism is neceasary for salvation.

■2. The Rejection of Infant Baptism

This follows, not primarily as a deduction from the evidence of the
New Testament, though this is adduced in its support, but chiefly as a
consequence of the doctrine of the Church as restricted to the community
•of believers. Infants cannot belong to the Church, as so defined, though
Baptists claim for them a place in what they call “ the Christian com-
munity ” (H. Cook, op. cit., p. 42). Undoubtedly the Lord welcomed
children and encouraged them to come, but He nowhere suggested that
they were already by His reception of them made members of His Church,
nor did He urge that they should be baptized. Hence to give them Baptism
is to violate the inward coherence of the Gospel principle, and to make
a sacrament of grace into something that savours of magic (H. Cook,
■op. cit., p. 44). The New Covenant, unlike the Old Covenant, leaves the
children outside. A pamphlet which had a large circulation in Scotland
in the middle of last century asserted that children have no claim to religious
ordinances, whether they have believing parents or not. A child of a
savage, an idolater, a Muhammedan, or an infidel has as much right to
Baptism as the child of the holiest man in the world {The Origin, Claims
■and Antiquity of The Baptists). The Reply to the Lambeth Appeal states :
“ In our judgement, the Baptism of infants incapable of offering a personal
confession of faith subverts the conception of the Church as the fellowship
•of believers. We recognize that those of whom Jesus said, ‘ of such is the
kingdom of heaven ’ belong to God and no rite is needed to bring them
into relation with Him ” (Cook, op. cit., p. 179). Other Baptists would
add that the Gospel incident does not prove that children should be baptized,
but rather that ‘ His kingdom is wider than His Church.’ For the Com-
mission’s view of the correct interpretation of this passage reference should
be made to The Biblical Doctrine of Baptism, p. 48 f.

3. Some Comments

The nature of the Church, as defined by the Baptists, necessarily ex-
cludes the Baptism of infants, but we cannot agree that this conception
•of the Church is in the Scriptures.

The New Testament does not separate the Church of the Old Testament
from the Church of the New Testament, but regards the Church, whether
in the wilderness ” (Acts vii. 38), or under the New Testament, as essenti-
ally the same Church of God. The difference made by Jesus was not a
difference of foundation principles, but a fulfilment of what had hitherto
been implicit. We cannot regard as Biblically adequate any interpretation
which seems to drive a wedge between Old and New Testaments, making
the former a repository of superseded ideas, and treating the Old Covenant
and its sacraments as irrelevant for the understanding of the New Covenant
(cf. Westminster Confession, xxvii. 5 ; Scots Confession, v. ; xvi.).

The Church in the New Testament is the fulfilment in Jesus Christ of
the Church in the Old Testament — a more comprehensive fulfilment in
that now the Gentiles also can become children of Abraham. But if the
children of the covenant people, who were embraced by the Old Covenant,

REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMISSION ON BAPTISM

are now to be excluded, and to be regarded as on a level with the children
of unbelievers, the New Covenant would thereby be made less compre-
hensive than the Old. and the grace of God in it would be more restricted
than in the Old.

We are boimd to be suspicious of the claim to scriptural authority for
any doctrine which makes Baptism less significant than circumcision. It
can mean no less. The son of Jewish parents was at birth in a different
relationship to God from the children of Gentiles. Of this difference his
circumcision was the seal. It is no less true that wiien God to-day sends a
child into the home of believing people, that child, from the first, stands
in a different relation to God from the child of jiagans. Both children
are born into a world in which Jesus has already been incarnate, crucified,
and raised from the dead, but they do not stand in precisely the same
relation towards these great events, since the one child is linked up, through
his lielieving parents, with this divine action and all that flows from it, in
a way that is not true of the other child. The Biblical emphasis on family
imity, expressed in the Old Testament by circumcision, and in the New
Testament by infant Baptism, is set aside by the Baptists, for whom all
relationships are reduced to terms of the individual and his conscious act.s
of cognition and volition.

With this emphasis upon rational self-consciousness, which characterizes
the Baptist approach, and the definition of the Church in a way which
necessarily excludes those vdio are not yet of an age to exercise such self-
consciousness, original sin becomes a very difficult problem. Baptists often
deny original guilt, and interpret original sin as an infection of evil picked
up by the child after its birth. If original sin is taken seriously and the
fiction of sin without guilt is repudiated, then the problem is acute. This
has been well jiut by the Rcil G. J. M. Pearce in a recent number of The
Baptist Times : — •

“ If, accepting the doctrine of origmal sm, we believe that a child
born into a sinful race is involved in its doom ; and if as Baptists,
we also believe that salvation depends on God’s grace received through
personal faith, how do we regard the spiritual status of the child
in the interval between his birth and his regeneration in Christ ?
He is born into the world of sin and death, and not yet born again.
If we take original sm seriously, he is in deadly peril ; but that we
do not really believe.

Perhaps the solution of the problem is that the grace of God
working through Christian training in home, Sunday School, and
public worship, coimteracts the effects of original sin and predisposes
him to personal faith. But it cannot reverse God’s judgement, and
it implies, moreover, that a child can receive some of the blessings
of the Divine covenant through the faith of others rather than his
mvn. Must we, after all, revise or abandon the doctrine of original
sin ? It fits in well with infant Baptism, but it makes difficulties
for Baptists. Could it be that infant Baptism, for all its errors,
jioints to truth we have not noticed, or have neglected ? ”

(The Baptist Times, Aug. 28, 1958.)

In answer to this frank statement, three things may be said : —

(i) Baptists, who allow' that original sin infects children right from birth,
or even immediately after it, long before they have come to the age of
responsibility or discretion, and who yet deny that God’s grace can operate
effectively towards them until they become “ adult sinners,” and can fully
understand and personally appropriate it, are in the strange position of
making God’s grace less effective than original sin.

REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMISSION ON BAPTISM 2&

(ii) It is Christ Himself who stands in for the child. This is the real
meaning of grace. He loved him, and died for him, and made him His
own before the child was able to commit himself to Christ. It is therefore
through “ the faith of Jesus Christ ” alone that God’s blessings are bestowed
upon the child ; it is therefore the faith or faithfulness of Christ alone
which stands in any vicarious relation to the child, not the faith or faithful-
ness of the parents or of the Church.

(iii) Baptism is the sacrament of what Christ has already done for
the child, antecedent to the rise of his faith, or to any possibility of response
on his part, and hence Baptism is the seal He has attached to His Word,
which declares and bestows His grace. It is not the seal of the subsequent
experience of the receiver. It is precisely by making Baptism a sacrament
of conscious inward experience rather than a sacrament of the Gospel
that the Baptists create such insuperable problems for themselves.

4. The Nature of Believer’s Baptism

If the Baptist claims as regards the nature of the Church and the part
of the children of believers in it are un-scriptural, it is also open to question
whether in fact the ceremony of adult Baptism, as used by Baptists, is
wholly true to Biblical doctrine, or whether the atmosphere of rationalism
and intellectualism which connects the Baptists with the Renaissance even
more than with the Reformation, has not produced here also a shift of
emphasis.

Part of the contribution of John the Baptist was that he made Baptism
something done to peojAe, in contrast to previous Bajitisms which had been
done by them ; and it is this which is the starting-point of New Testament
Baptism. For Baptists, however, the emphasis remains largely pre-
Johannine — concerned with Baptism still as something done by the bajHized,
though other aspects may at times be mentioned. It can on occasion
go so far as to become self-Baptism, as in the case of the se-baptist John
Smyth in 1609 (H. Cook, op. cit., p. 94), but even where it does not reach
to such extravagances, the stress is continually laid upon the human act,,
the human faith, the human centre of the rite.

The heads of instruction in the significance of the ordinance of Baptism
given in the Minister's Manual are very illuminating. It is to be exjilained
as : —

“ (a) An act of obedience to the command of our Lord Jesus Christ
and His Apostles :

ib) A distinctive act in which the believer openly confesses his faith
in God, and his desire to give his life in the service of Christ
who gave Himself for him :

(c) An act in which he joins himself to the company of all who,
receiving God’s grace in Christ have submitted themselves to
His will :

{d) An imitation of Christ, Who, though He knew no sin, yet in Baptism
made Himself one with them who sought to do the will of God,
and was buried in the waters of the Jordan :

(e) The declaration, according with New Testament precept and
practice, that the believer enters into new gifts of grace, since
Baptism in water is an outward and visible sign and seal of
the inward and invisible grace of Baptism into Jesus Christ :

{/) A declaration in symbol, for a believer’s Baptism by immersion
tells a story, that the candidate, being buried with Christ, has;
put away the life of sin and selfishness, renouncing ‘ the vain
pomp and glory of the world, with all the covetous desires of
the same, and the carnal desires of the flesh,’ and has risen

REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMISSION ON BAPTISM

being born anew through God’s regenerating power, to the life
that is hidden with Christ in God, to keep His will and com-
mandments, and walk in the same all the days of his life.”

(A Minister's Manual, arranged by M. F. Aubrey, with
the co-operation in the 2nd edition of Dr F. Townley Lord
and Dr Hugh Martin, p. 29 f.)

Explained in these terms. Baptism has become an almost completely
tnan-centred act, in which the significant thing is what the believer does
to make visible and external certain internal decisions and experiences of
his own. No doubt for many Baptists this does not exhaust the meaning
of the I'ite, and they would vehemently maintain that there is another side
to it ; yet this emphasis keeps occurring in Baptist literature, as such
statements as the following indicate : “As we set forth His death in the
Lord’s Supper, so we should set forth our death, in and with Him, in the
Act of Baptism ” (F. B. Meyer, Seven Reasons for Believer's Baptism,
p. 10 f.). “Baptism expres.ses . . . the believer’s acceptance of all that is
involved in Christ’s death, burial and resurrection. . . . The believer
personally identifies himself with Christ. . . . Baptism is the door by
which the believer enters the Church, the society of those who have already
pledged themselves. . . . The candidate is sustained by the prayers of
those who count him as one of themselves ” (H. Cook, op. cit., p. 72 f.).

The man-centred emiihasis is clear. Baptism under such conditions
may well be a very solemn season of self-dedication, but is it in fact New
Testament Baptism ? We can hardly think so.

H. Wheeler Robinson has clearly recognized the difference in emphasis.
After noting that the common element in Presbyterian, Anglican, and
other interpretations is passivity — it is throughout something done to,
nothing done by the baptized ” — he proceeds to contrast the Bajitist
position as ‘ ‘ not simjily a new phase of this succession of interpretations ;
it stands outside of them all as the only Baptism which is strictly and primarily
an ethical act on the part of the hapti7.cd ” [Life and Faith, p. 83). This may
be an accurate statement of the Baptist rite as understood by many Baptists,
but it is not an accurate description of Baptism as it appears in Scripture.
It has indeed connexions with the New Testament sacrament, but it now
appears, stripped of its New Testament significance, and transformed into
an act of personal devotion and dedication in which it is the believer’s
thoughts, emotions and intentions which are the significant things. It
may still be a sign of what man renders to God ; it has ceased to be a seal
of what God has bestowed upon man. The rite has lost its essential Christo -
centric character, and the action of Christ in the sacrament has disajipeared.

5. Redemption and Salvation

M’hen thoughtful Baptists jirobe behind their disagreements with the
other evangelical Churches in regard to believer’s Baptism, they frequently
have recourse to a sharp distinction between redemption and salvation.
While redemption is held to refer to what has already taken place once
for all, in the finished work of Christ, salvation is held to refer to the saving
experience of the individual who appropriates redemption as it is offered to
him in the preaching of the Gospel. It is only by this appropriation —
i.e., in personal decision, regeneration, or conversion — that a man is really
saved, and only then does redemption become real and true for him.

Redemption thus refers to the objective work of Christ, and salvation
refers to the subjective truth in the individual’s experience of Christ.
While redemption is proclaimed as a finished work, salvation is regarded
as conditional upon personal experience in conversion. With this radical
distinction. Baptism comes to be regarded, not as the sign and seal of

REPOKT OF THE SPECIAL COMMISSION ON BAPTISM 31

the Gospel of redemption, but as the sacramental or symbolic expression
of the individual’s own state as a saved, or converted person.

It is difficult for us in the Church of Scotland to blame the Baptists
for adopting this unbiblical distinction between redemption and salvation,
for it derives from the false distinction between the covenant of redemption
and the covenant of grace in our own Federal Theology. When the doctrine
of election was given up, the truth of salvation was foimd, not in the objective
reality of the act of God in Christ, but in the subjective experience of
conversion. At the same time the Biblical idea of a covenant was replaced
by the idea of a mutual contract, voluntarily entered into by two parties.
This led to the preaching of salvation as conditioned by man’s act, and
ultimately dependent upon him. This error of the Baptists drives us back
upon the Biblical teaching that Baptism is a sacrament of the Gospel,
a sign and seal of God’s saving act in Jesus Christ, which is already completed
in Christ (not only from the side of God towards man, but also from the
side of man towards God), and which is freely offered to men in the Gospel.

6. The Nature of Regeneration

In line with the last distinction. Baptists tend either to speak of two
regenerations — -regeneration (palingenesia) which took place in Christ, and
the regeneration which takes place in the experience of the believer — -or
else, and this is the more common case, to limit regeneration to the sub-
jective experience of the believer, in whose nature and personality it is
interpreted basically as a moral and psychological event. In other words
regeneration is held to be a subjective state of inward moral renewal.

This view derives from the mediaaval Roman subjectivism out of which
the Anabaptist movement originally sprang, but whereas in Roman piety
this regeneration was thought of as operating through sacramental grace,
giving something in addition to what Christ had already done once and
for all on our behalf, in Baptist and Arminian teaching it is thought of as
taking place through conversion. It is at this point that the sharpest
tlifference between the Biblical teaching of the Reformed Church and the
teaching of the Baptists is most apparent. For the Reformed Church,
regeneration is the renewal of our humanity in Christ, in which we are given
to share, so that in Christ we are new creatures. For Baptists, regeneration
is that new and additional experience which each individual must have
in himself before he is saved. The result is that in the Baptist Church
the focus of attention is not so much upon the mighty acts of our salvation
in Christ as upon the individual’s experience of conversion — -i.e., upon an
all-important experience of dying and rising again in the likeness of Christ.
This is the exj)erimental “ truth ” that is made so prominent by the rigid
emphasis upon believer’s Baptism.

7. The Meaning of a Sacrament

Again in line with their origins in mediaeval Roman piety. Baptists
lay great stress upon a distinction between the inward and the outward
experience ; but whereas in Romanism the focus of attention by the masses
was upon the outward sacramental institution, and thus upon a false
objectivity, for mediaeval mystics. Anabaptists, and modern Baptists, the
emphasis is upon the inwardness or spirituality of religious experience.
It is essentially in reaction to the false objectivity that the Baptist view
of the sacrament arises, for it is regarded as the outward expression, or
symbol, of an inward moral and spiritual state. In the nature of the case.
Baptism as the outward seal of inward conversion is not regarded as valid
unless there actually is that subjective experience of conversion. This
inward experience is regarded as the ‘ truth ’ or ‘ reality ’ of Baptism.
This was the very view which Luther and Calvin opposed in their doctrine

REPORT or THE SPECIAL COMMISSION ON BAPTISM

of justification by grace alone in Christ, but which came, through the
renaissance stress upon the autonomy of the human reason in the individual,
and through Anabaptist ‘ spirituality ’ so to infect Protestantism that in
the nineteenth century it became the great boast of neo -Protestantism
that truth is found in the religious personalitj% in religious inwardness,
and immediacy . The Baptist Church thus enshrines, more than any other
C'hurch, the great error of modernism, w'hich finds the truth of salvation
in the religious subject himself, and which identifies the Holy Sphit with
man’s own spiritual experiences. This modernist and subjectivist theory
is constantly being inhibited by the fact that Baptists are in intention
Biblical Christians ; but in the great Baptists, like Wheeler Robinson,
w^e see most clearly how this absorjition of the Christological reality in the
subjective experience results in the identification of the inward moral and
spiritual states of the believer with w'hat is called the pneumatological.
It is this denial of the objective reality of the Holy Spirit as meaning for
us anything more than our subjective knowledge of God that makes it
so difficult for them to a23preciate the gift of the Holy Spirit promised
and sealed to infants at their Baj^tism (cf. D. S. Cairns, sup., [j. 7). It
is not surjirising that believer’s Bajitism, which entails this subjectivizing
of the Holy Spirit, is essentially a modern j^henomenon (first foimd in
1140 A.D. See 1957 Report, 7), for it is boimd up wdth the “ modern ”
outlook of renaissance and “ spiritualistic ” man. It is just because it
has such deep roots in this modern subjectivism that it is so hard to show
those who maintain it what the Biblical conception of the Gospel of salvation,
of new birth in Christ, and of justification by faith really is.

8. The Place op Decision

Although the New Testament nowhere s^ieaks of decision, it does call
us to re^ient and follow Christ, and summons us to the obedience of faith.
Baptists and Armenians have seized u^ion this element of ‘ decision,’ and
have so stressed it that everything, in fact ultimately the full reality of
salvation, depends ujion it. This is again essentially a modernist em^ihasis,
and it is directly out of it that there has arisen the idea that we are saved
through existential decision, and self-understanding — an idea which is
menacing the very foimdations of the Gospel in our generation.

In the teaching of the New Testament, the great decision has already
Vieen taken by God in Jesus Christ, for in Christ God has already laid hold
u2ion us, while the account and res23onse which sinful man is called to
give to the Holy God has already been rendered in the obedient life and
death of Jesus Christ, so that He wholly stands in for us through His
vicarious life and death. The Gospel announces to us this amazmg Good
New's, and calls iqDon us to throw in our lot with Christ in thankfulness,
joy. and obedience. This call for decision is a call to rely upon the 25rior
decision w'hich Christ has ah’eady taken, and which is annoimced to us
as a finished work in the Word of the Gos2iel. There is nothing that we can
do, by decision, or faith, or re23entance, or obedience which can add one
iota to the finished work of Christ. Therefore we are not called to faith
and decision in such a u’ay that everything ultimately depends upon our
faith and our decision, for this would mean that faith and decision become,
in the last analysis, saving acts, or ‘ works ’ of salvation. Nowhere in the
New Testament is faith, or decision, spoken of as that which constitutes a
man a forgiven being, or a Christian. If it were, we could only ‘ believe
in ’ Christ with the ulterior motive of using belief to save ourselves. This
is the 023posite of the Gospel. It is precisely because the Gospel announces
to us the Good News that Christ has already intervened on our behalf,
and has already given to God an account in our stead, with wffiich God
is well 23leased, that we can really believe and are free to make a true

EEPOBT OF THE SPECIAL COMMISSION ON BAPTISM 33

•and sincere decision without the ulterior motive of using it as a ‘ saving
work.’ No doubt this is difficult for the natural man to understand, as
St Paul found, and as, centuries later, Luther found, when they were
accused of antinomianism because they preached the Gospel of justification
by grace alone. The case is not one whit different when we use the modern
language of decision. Here the memorable words of the late H. R. Mac-
kintosh are in place : “ Unless your preaching has a suspicion of anti-
nomianism about it, you can be sure it is not the Gospel.”

All this means that Baptism is not the sacrament of man’s decision,
but the sacrament of the saving decision which Christ has already made
on our behalf, and which is announced to us in the word of the Gospel.
It is for this reason that Baptism is administered as a seal to the word
of promise in the Gospel, as a seal to the Good News armounced in the
kerugma, and never as a seal to the response or to the decision of man.
This is the Biblical doctrine of Baptism, which Baptists greatly misrepresent
when they insist that Baptism is the outward sign of the decision of the
believer, or the outward symbol of the inward and spiritual state of his
soul. While we cannot but welcome the evangelical zeal of our Baptist
brethren, their call for sincere Christian decision and commitment, and
their summons to men and women to repentance and conversion, we
cannot agree that Baptism is the sacrament given to be the sign of man’s
act, or man’s decision, or man’s spiritual experience. We cannot do this
because we really believe in the Good News announced to us in the New
Testament, and sealed to us in Baptism, that the whole of our salvation
depends upon Jesus Christ, and that it is in Him alone that we are new
creatures. Therefore we do not look within ourselves — into our own
subjective experience — to find the truth of our salvation. We do not
even look to our own faith and decision, but in faith look away from our-
selves to Jesus Christ, who is both the Author and Perfecter of our faith.

In name of the Commission,

THOMAS F. TORRANCE, Convener.
JOHN HERON, Secretary.

REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMISSION ON BAPTISM

PROPOSED DELIVERANCE

1. The General Assembly receive the Interim Report, which completes
the iDreliminary work of the Commission, and thank its members, and
especially the Convener and the Secretarj^ for their diligence.

2. The General Assembly instruct that a copy of the Interim Report
be sent to all ministers and Presbytery elders, and copies as may be desired
to the four Theological Colleges. The General Assembly also direct that
sufficient cojDies of the Interim Report be made available for sale through
the Chm’ch of Scotland Bookshops.

3. The General Assembly instruct Presbyteries to ai^point a day for
sjaecial conference upon the Interim Report, and to send their comments
and suggestions to the Secretary of the Commission by 30th November 1959.

4. The General Assembly commend the Commission to the guidance of
Almighty God in their further labours.

Printed by William Blackwood & Sons Ltd.^ Edinburgh

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Report of the Special Commission on Baptism"

See other formats