A treatise on Christian baptism

WTmicsr^

Logical sm"^

BV 811 .B44 1888

Beet, Joseph Agar

A treatise on Christian

Baptism

^^.^ fXLCAj^-eyLjz-^'i^^ **^.

/^. ^. U-.

M).

ctca-^.^^..^^ /^ ^e/^C^O.

A TREATISE

ON

CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.

oxks hj) the same Jlwtltor.

Sixth Edition, Crown Zvo, Price js. 6d.

A COMMENTARY ON
ST. PAUL'S EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

'A masterpiece of Biblical Exposition."

Dr. Morison.

Third Edition, Crown Zvo, Price \os. 6d.

A COMMENTARY ON
ST. PAUL'S EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS.

" His admirable Commentary."

Dr. Godet.

Third Edition, Crown Svo, Price 5J.

A COMMENTARY ON
ST. PAUL'S EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

"An exposition of the utmost value."

C. H. Spurgeon.

Fifth Edition, Crown 2>vo, Price is.

HOLINESS, AS UNDERSTOOD BY THE WRITERS
OF THE BIBLE.

" I go along entirely with almost every word of it."

Dean Vaughan.

London: HODDER AND STOUGHTON, 27, Paternoster Row.

A TREATISE

CHRISTIAN BAPTISM

JOSEPH AGAR BEET.

HODDER AND STOUGHTON,

27, PATERNOSTER ROW.

MDCCCLXXXVIII.

Printed by Hazell, Watson, & Viney, Ld., London and Aylesbury.

PREFACE.

THE following treatise is an amended and enlarged
reprint of papers which appeared in the British
Weekly during March and April of the present year.

To my argument several critics object, that all sorts
of serious errors are modifications of New Testament
teaching, and that my proof of Infant Baptism is over-
turned by my own disproof of Baptismal Regeneration.
But I have endeavoured to show that, whereas this last
doctrine contradicts utterly the broad principles of the New
Covenant, the practice of Infant Baptism is in complete
harmony with them and with still broader principles
underlying both Old and New Covenants. This complete
difference robs their reply of all force. I have also shown
that Infant Baptism embodies in the best mode an all-
important truth needing ever to be kept in view, which
if not thus embodied would leave the New Covenant in
one important point inferior to the Old. These argu-
ments, the critics referred to have overlooked. Their
oversight implies that we are bound to reproduce to the
letter the forms of Church life described in the New
Testament. This silent assumption marks the difference
between their standpoint and mine. And on this ground

6 Preface.

the whole question must be decided. Is Christianity
a life adapting itself, in harmony with its own vital
principles, to its varying environment ? Or is it a verbal
prescription admitting of no development and adjust-
ment?

Fortunately, as I have shown in Section ii., our Baptist
brethren are illogical. Otherwise they would need to
reconstruct the polity of their own Churches. For there
is nothing like a solitary pastorate in the New Testament.
And it is a serious modification of the Church polity
there described. This modification, however, which our
brethren have long retained as suited to their needs,
I have endeavoured to justify, on the principles advocated
in this treatise.

So far as I have seen, no critic has ventured to deal
with my argument about the Lord's Day.

My readers must judge whether, as Dr. Clifford implies
in a paper in the British Weekly, Infant Baptism as I
have expounded it is "practically destructive of New
Testament Baptism and fearfully generative of the
errors of Baptismal Regeneration." But I greatly rejoice
to hear from him that the Church over which he presides
practises "the dedication of children in the presence of
the congregation (or at home) to God our Father, in
recognition of His redeeming love, and of our obligation
as Christians to train them in a knowledge of its sweet-
ness and power." May such recognition become uni-
versal in the Baptist Churches. To whatever extent
it prevails, it is a debt due to the Churches which during
long centuries have baptized infants.

Preface, 7

May such mutual indebtedness greatly increase, each
Church borrowing from all others whatever good they
possess, that thus the blessings conferred upon one
Church may become an enrichment to all.

As this leaves my hand I have received a Handbook of
Scriptural Church Principles published at the Wesley an
Book Room. I observe with pleasure, so far as a hasty
perusal will permit, that its exposition of Christian
Baptism is practically the same as that which I have
here given. The whole chapter is worthy of careful
study.

Richmond, 7//z Septeiiiber, 1888.

CONTENTS.

Section Page

I. The Teaching of the New Testament . . . .11

Note on the word Covenant 24

II. The Baptism of Infants 28

Note on Proselyte Baptism ...... 43

III. Baptismal Regeneration 44

IV. The Significance" and Benefit of the Baptism of

Infants 56

V. The Relation of Baptized Children to the Church . 63
APPENDIX. References to Baptism by early Christian

Writers . 72

A TREATISE ON

CHRISTIAN BAPTISM

SECTION I.
THE TEACHING OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

IN this treatise I shall discuss the purpose and signifi-
cance of Christian Baptism, the proper subjects of
the rite, the special significance and benefits of the
Baptism of Infants, and the relation of baptized children
to the Church of Christ.

Our inquiry takes us back to the dawn of the New
Covenant.

The silence of centuries was suddenly broken, 1 850
years ago, on the desolate banks of the Jordan, by the
fearless voice of a prophet of strange apparel and
bearing. For the first time in the memory of living
men, crowds hung upon the lips of a religious teacher.
Much that he said was in the strain of the ancient
prophets, whose words, treasured in their Sacred Books,
were familiar to all his hearers. One thing, however,
was new, and was so distinctive as to give to the strange

12 Christian Baptism.

teacher his most common and enduring designation : he
was John the Baptizer.

Even this feature was not altogether new to the prac-
tice and thought of Israel. According to the prescriptions
of the Law of Moses, in many cases of ceremonial defile-
m.ent the unclean one needed to be purified by water
before he could again approach the sanctuary. Of this
we find a good example in Numbers xix. 1 1 — 22, where
a man who has touched a corpse is required to be sprinkled
with water by a man not himself defiled, and afterwards
to bathe himself in water. We notice also that in
Sirach xxxiv, 25 this purification is described by a word
which afterwards became the technical term for the
rite performed by John : A man who is baptized from a
corpse and again touches it, what is he profited by his wash-
ing? So in Mark vii. 4, in reference to other similar
purifications, e.g. those prescribed in Leviticus xi. 32, we
read of baptisms of cups and pots and brazen vessels, and
are told that the Pharisees returning from market do not
eat until they have baptized themselves. These ceremonial
purifications had already moulded the language of much of
the moral teaching ©f the Old Testament. So we read in
Psalm li. 7 : purify (literally, un-sin) me with hyssop, and
I shall be clean ; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.
And in Isa. i. 15, 16: Your hands are full of blood. Wash
you, make you clean. Complete purification of the inner
life was a conspicuous feature of the future deliverance
seen from afar by enraptured seers. And it was fre-
quently presented under the figure of washing with water.
So Ezekiel xxxvi. 25 : / will sprinkle clean water upon you,

New Testament Teaching, 13

and ye shall be clean : from all your filthiness and from all
your idols I will cleanse you. AndZechariah xiii. i : In that
day there shall be a fountain opened for the house of David
and for the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for unclean-
ness. These ancient practices, teaching, and prophecies,
the Baptism of John could hardly fail to recall to the
minds of multitudes around him.

With Baptism was associated personal confession of sin.
So Matthew iii. 6 : They were baptized in Jordan by him,
confessiitg their sins. And, by submitting to the rite, the
baptized one acknowledged that the sins he confessed
were a stain needing to be washed away. That the rite
was never self-administered, but always received from one
who claimed to be sent by God, or possibly from some one
acting under his direction, taught plainly that the sinner
needs a purification altogether beyond his own power.
We notice also that John proclaimed the insufficiency of
his own Baptism, and announced the approach of a
Baptizer greater than himself and of a Baptism not with
water but with the Holy Spirit. This last announcement
recalls the prophecy of Ezekiel quoted above, where God
goes on to promise, / will put My Spirit within you.

The baptized ones became, and were known as, disciples
of John : John iii. 25, iv. I. Some of them remained
such even after the appearance of Jesus, and as distin-
guished from His disciples : Matthew ix. 14, xi. 2. But,
although doubtless they clung together, we have no proof
that they were formed into an organized society.

From John iii. 22 we learn that soon after His appear-
ance Christ began to baptize. The number baptized soon

14 Christian Baptis77i.

became large, and the administration of the rite was
committed to His disciples : ch. iv. 2. Whether or not
the persons baptized were then enrolled as members of a
society, we do not know. But the emphatic announce-
ment by Christ, as recorded in Matt. xvi. 1 8, in circum-
stances specially solemn, / will build My Church : and the
Gates of Hades shall not prevail against it, teaches clearly
that the founding of a society was an essential part of
the work He came to do. This truth will shed important
light on the matter before us.

In the last words of Christ recorded in the First
Gospel, words spoken apparently only to the eleven
Apostles, we have the formal appointment of Baptism as
an abiding rite of the Church : Go therefore and make
disciples of all the nations, baptizing them. This does not
mean, according to the more probable reading, that
Baptism was to be the method of making disciples, but
simply that while gathering learners for the school of
Christ the Apostles were to baptize them, and also to teach
them whatever Christ had commanded. The accompany-
ing promise proclaims clearly that the rite was designed
to continue to the end of the world.

With these words of Christ, those recorded in
Mark xvi. i6 agree so completely that it is almost
needless to inquire whether they originally formed part
of the Second Gospel. By solemnly ordaining Baptism
our Lord made it obligatory on all who seek His
favour ; and thus made it a condition of salvation. For
we cannot enjoy His smile while we refuse to obey
His express command. We therefore do not wonder

New Testament Teaching, 15

to find that in this passage salvation is promised only to
those who both believe the Gospel and confess their
faith by receiving Baptism : He that helieveth and is bap^
tized shall be saved. The absolute rigour of the second
condition is somewhat softened by its absence from the
latter clause : he that disbelieveth shall be condemned. In
view of this command, thousands in all ages and countries,
seeking salvation, have received the sacred rite at great
cost and peril. They have dared thus to confess Christ
in joyful confidence that He will confess them before His
Father in heaven.

Very humbly and reverently we now ask, Why did
Christ, in full view of the tremendous loss and peril it
would in many cases involve, require this formal con-
fession ? Why did He, in a spiritual religion, ordain
an outward rite as a condition of salvation ? A partial
answer is not far to seek. Christ ordained and required
the outward rite of Baptism in order that Christianity
might assume visible form before men and present to
the world a united front, and in order that His servants
might recognise each other and thus be able to stand
shoulder to shoulder in the great conflict strengthened
by mutual counsel and encouragement. For this end
He required His servants to confess Him; and ordained
Baptism as a specific mode of confession.

Similarly, among other reasons, Christ ordained the
Lord's Supper, the one recurrent rite of His Church,
in order to maintain in it unity, and the strength of
unity.

The above exposition will shed light upon, and receive

1 6 Christia7i Baptism.

support from, all other references to Baptism in the New
Testament.

We understand now the startHng exhortation of
Ananias to Saul of Tarsus recorded in Acts xxii. i6 :
Arise and baptize thyself and wash away thy sins.
These strong words evidently mean, Remove the stain
of thy sins by the water of Baptism. Ananias knew
that Christ had expressly ordained and commanded the
rite; and had thus made it a condition of His favour
and of the salvation He proclaimed. Therefore, for the
repentant persecutor, there was no forgiveness and puri-
fication except by formal confession of Christ in Baptism.
Now, to our thought, a condition performed in order to
attain a result dependent upon it is a means to that end.
Consequently, Ananias could speak, and in this passage
does speak, of Baptism as a means of salvation.

The strange occurrence here of the middle voice,
baptize-thyselfy reminds us that in his Baptism Saul was
himself the most conspicuous actor. Somewhat similar,
but without any reference to Baptism, the persons ad-
dressed being already baptized, are St. Paul's words
in 2 Corinthians vii. I : let us cleanse ourselves. So
I John iii. 3 : he that hath this hope in him purifieth
himself. By faith we claim the purity which, through
the death of Christ, the Spirit of God works in those
who believe. For faith is the condition on which that
purity is given. Therefore, in this correct sense, we are
exhorted to purify ourselves.

The passage just expounded sheds light upon Titus iii. 5.
Long after his own Baptism at Damascus, St. Paul wrote

New Testa7nent Teac/iine'.

't,

to this Gentile convert, God saved us by means of the laver ^
(or batJi) of the New Birth. And we have no need to
deny a reference here to the rite of Baptism. The words
which follow, renewing by the Holy Spirit, remind us that
these persons were born of water and Spirit.

These last words are from the lips of Christ speaking
to Nicodemus, as recorded in John iii. 5. And they are
easily explained. This member of the Sanhedrin, a
Pharisee, and apparently (see verse 4) an old man, shrank
from the public confession involved in the water of
Baptism. But in these words the teacher sent from God
reminds him that the New Birth wrought by the Spirit,
without which none can see the Kingdom of God, is only
for those who confess Christ in His appointed way, that
even for Nicodemus there was no way into the Kingdom
except through the gate of Baptism. The water is men-
tioned first as that which presented to Nicodemus the
chief obstacle to salvation. It is mentioned only once,
while the Spirit occurs in verses 5 — 8 three times,
because He is the active Personal Agent, whereas Bap-
tism is only a condition of the New Birth.

In complete harmony with Mark xvi. 16 are two other
well-known references to Baptism. In Galatians iii. 26, St.
Paul declares that his readers are all sons of God through
faith; and at once supports his words by saying that by their
Baptism, which he assumes all to have received, they have
put on Christ, and therefore, like Him, are sons of God.
He thus Hnks together Baptism and (see ch. iv. 5) adoption
into the family of God. But the Baptism referred to is,
as the order of the verses proves, a confession of personal

2

1 8 Christian Baptism,

faith. This connection of faith and Baptism is equally con-
spicuous in Colossians ii. 1 2, where the Apostle teaches that
they who have been buried with Christ in Baptism have also
been raised together with Him by means of their faith in the
energy of God who raised Him from the dead. Similar
teaching in Romans vi. 4 : We were buried with Him by
means of Baptism for death.

In Acts X. 47, 48 is recorded the Baptism of some
who had already received the Holy Spirit. This proves
that the outward rite was needful even for those who had
indisputably obtained inward spiritual life.

In 2 Corinthians xii. 1 3 we read : In one Spirit we all were
baptized into one body . . . and all were made to drink one
Spirit. This refers probably to Baptism by water. For
we have here no suggestion of any other than the ordinary
meaning of the word baptize. St. Paul is speaking of the
Church which is the body of Christ, and of the Holy Spirit
who is its animating principle. By Baptism, his readers
entered the Church and were thus united to the body of
Christ. And by faith, of which their Baptism was a con-
fession, they obtained (Galatians iii. 2) the gift of the Spirit.
Consequently, to St. Paul's thought the outward condition,
and the inward Source, of the new life were closely
associated : In one Spirit they were baptized into one body.
Similarly in John iii. 5 we have a birth of water and
Spirit. So in Acts ii. 38 we read : Repent and be baptized,
each of you, in the name of ]esus Christ for remission of
sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. On
the other hand, St. Paul never uses the phrase baptize
with the Holy Spirit, found in Matthew iii. 11, Mark i. 8,

New Testament Teaching, 19

Luke iii. 16, John i. 33, Acts i. 5. If our exposition be
correct, we have in i Corinthians xii. 13 a definite reference
to Baptism as the outward and visible gate into the
Church and into the company of those savingly joined
to each other and to Christ.

One more reference demands attention. In a passage
otherwise very difficult we read, water, which as an anti-
type now saveth you, even Baptism : I Peter iii. 21. These
words present no difficulty. For in all human language
we may, leaving out of sight the first cause, attribute
a result to its instrumental or proximate cause. If, as
we have seen. Baptism is a condition, and in this sense
an instrument, of salvation, St. Peter could rightly say, as
he here says, Baptism saveth you.

The above are the chief references to Baptism in the
New Testament. And they represent fairly its entire
teaching. All other references agree with those expounded
above. In all of them Baptism is the formal and visible
gate through which the members of the Apostolic Churches
entered the company of the professed followers of Christ,
a gate erected by Christ as, for them, the only way of
salvation. And this explains a few remarkable passages
noted above in which Baptism is spoken of not only as a
condition, but as a means, of salvation. The great import-
ance of the rite, implied in these references to it, I have
already in part endeavoured to explain.

So far I have spoken of Baptism chiefly as a divinely-
appointed and obligatory mode of confessing personal
faith in Christ, looking upon the rite as though it were
an act of the person baptized. But we must never forget

20 Christian Baptism.

that, as matter of fact, no one baptized himself. This
proves that in Baptism there is much more than personal
confession. We seek its further significance.

In Baptism the already-existing Church received into
its fold a new convert. For the person baptized became
at once a member of the Society founded by Christ. On
the other hand, but for the Church, there had been no
preached word, no faith, no convert, and no confession
of faith. Now the Church is a living embodiment of the
New Covenant. It rests upon the great historic fact that
in Christ God has come near to man and entered into
definite engagement to give to him certain good things on
certain conditions. From this Covenant flow all the
blessings obtained by faith in Christ. And the objective
fact of the Covenant is of infinitely greater importance
than the faith or confession of any one baptized person.

Had we been present at the Baptism of Saul of Tarsus,
our eyes would have been fixed upon the new convert,
and our thoughts fixed upon the submission to Christ of
so determined an enemy. Probably, the baptized one's
own thought, as he came humbly and passive to receive
the rite, would be that the ancient promises were now
fulfilled, and that in Jesus of Nazareth whom he had so
bitterly persecuted a fountain had been opened for the
house of David for sin and for uncleanness. In other words,
whereas to onlookers the personal act of Saul would be
the most conspicuous element of the rite, to the baptized
person himself the one all-absorbing thought would be
about the infinite blessings objectively given to man once
for all in Christ and in the New Covenant, By recalling

New Testament Teachimj. 21

<?>

that Covenant, Baptism becomes a divinely-erected monu-^^
ment of it.

This second view of the significance of Baptism is
strongly confirmed by two important analogies. Of these,
the first is found in the initial rite of the Old Covenant.
The close analogy between the two Covenants suggests
irresistibly this comparison of their initial rites. But in
making it we must carefully bear in mind both the elements
common to the two Covenants and the essential differences
between them. Almost everything in the New Covenant
is found in germ in the Old. And in every case the germ
receives a development in harmony with the peculiar spirit
of the New Covenant.

At the institution of the earlier rite in Genesis xvii. 10, </
God used these strong words : This is My Covenant which
ye shall keep, between Me and you and thy seed after thee;
Every man child among you shall be circumcised. God thus
made it a visible monument or token (verse ii) of His
Covenant with Abraham ; and, as expressly stated in
verse 14, a condition of the blessings of that Covenant.
Thus in the analogous rite of Circumcision we find the
two elements noted above in Baptism. Each rite was on
the one hand a monument of the great fact that God had
entered into covenant with man, and on the other hand
a formal and personal acknowledgment of loyalty to God,
an acknowledgment required by God as a condition of His
favour.

A second analogy is found in the Lord's Supper.
Although in the New Testament the two rites are never
associated or even mentioned together, (except possibly by

22 Christian Baptism.

casual and silent reference, as in I Corinthians x. 2, 3,) the
Church has in all ages, guided by true spiritual instinct,
joined them together as the two sacraments, or at least as
the Roman Church teaches the two chief sacraments, of
the Christian rehgion. They stand together in a unique
position as the only outward rites designed for all the
servants of Christ. We therefore expect to find, under-
lying the special significance peculiar to each, a deeper
and broader significance common to the two sacraments
ordained by Christ.

In close analogy with the ancient rite of circumcision,
at the institution of His Supper our Lord said, as recorded
in I Corinthians xi. 25, This cup is the New Covenant in
My blood. In each case, the meaning is the same. Cir-
cumcision and the Lord's Supper were visible monuments
of the all-important historic fact that God had drawn near
to man and placed man in special relation to Himself.

In view then of the connection between Baptism and
Circumcision, as the initial rites of the New and Old
Covenants respectively, and of that between Baptism and
the Lord's Supper as the two universal rites of the Church
of Christ, it is impossible to doubt that also Baptism was
designed to be a visible monument of the New Covenant.
That Christ erected two such monuments, need not surprise
us. For the fact thus commemorated is infinitely the
greatest of human history. The one monument stands
at the entrance to the Christian life, and reminds us that
they only can come to God whose hearts have been
cleansed from the stain of sin, a cleansing beyond their
own power, but wrought by Christ in all who believe the

New Testament Teaching. 23

Gospel. The other monument is recurrent along the whole
way to heaven, and reminds us that the blessings of the
New Covenant come through the blood and death of Christ
and that only from His pierced body and shed blood do
we derive the nutriment needful for our daily spiritual life.
Christian Baptism then has a double significance. It is '
a divinely-erected monument of the New Covenant, and
of the purification therein required and imparted. And
this monument of the Covenant is also the divinely-erected
gate through which men born in Judaism and Heathenism
entered the company of the professed servants of Christ.
Either of these aspects may for the moment claim chief or
sole attention. So in Romans iv. 1 1 St. Paul speaks of
the circumcision of Abraham as a seal of the faith which he
had while yet uncircumcised, overlooking for the moment
the main significance of the rite as asserted by God at its
institution. But the view he took of the rite, though not
even suggested in Genesis, was a legitimate inference from
the narrative there ; and bore directly upon the matter the
Apostle had in hand, viz., the analogy between Abraham's
faith and faith in Christ. The other aspect had no such
bearing ; and was therefore passed over by St. Paul in
silence. So we, contemplating Christian Baptism as
pourtrayed in the New Testament, thought first of it as a
confession of faith and as a condition of salvation. Our
second thoughts revealed a profounder significance of the
sacred rite, viz., the New Covenant, purposed in eternity
and manifested in Christ, the divine source and foundation
of all Christian faith, confession, and life. As administered
by the Church, Baptism represents the work once for all ^

24 Christian Baptism,

done by God for man. As received by the individual it
represents man's appropriation to himself of the offered
blessings. Thus the Sacrament of Baptism reflects in
itself the two aspects of that New Covenant of which it
is a sign and seal ; and links together God and Man.

The common Hebrew word rendered Covenant denotes
always an agreement in which each of two contracting
parties binds himself to certain action on condition of
certain action by the other party. A covenant thus unites
two parties in a definite relation involving mutual obliga-
tions. As examples we may quote Genesis xxi. 27, 32,
where Abimelech makes a friendly agreement with
Abraham about a well ; and ch. xxvi. 28, where Abimelech
makes a similar covenant with Isaac. So in ch. xxxi. 44
Laban says to Jacob, Come noWy let us make a covenant^
I and thou; and let it be for a witness between me and
thee. The express stipulations are given in vv. 50 — 52.
Another good example is found in Joshua ix. 6, 7, ii, 15, 16:
And Joshua made peace with them, with the Gibeonites,
and made a covenant with them to let them live : and the
princes of the congregation sware unto them. These cove-
nants were voluntary engagements by two contracting
parties, engagements which either party might have
refused, but which when once made were binding on both.

A very conspicuous feature of the Old Testament is the
series of covenants of God with Noah, with Abraham, and
with Moses as the leader and representative of Israel.
So Genesis vi. 18, ix. 9 — 16; ch. xv. 18, xvii. 2 — 21;
Exodus vi. 4, 5, xix. 5, xxiv. 7, 8. In these covenants

Covenant, 2 5

God graciously bound Himself to bestow certain benefits
on certain conditions, and laid upon those to whom the
covenant was given, apart from any choice of their own,
the strongest possible obhgation to fulfil the conditions.

That the same word is used in these two cases, must
not be allowed to obscure the great difference between a
covenant of man with man and these covenants of God
with man. The former becomes valid only by the agree-
ment of both parties. Either party might have refused
the agreement, and would then have been free from its
obligations. But, for man to refuse a covenant offered by
God, is disobedience and rebellion. His obligations rest,
not in the least degree on his own consent, but simply
and only on the command of his King and Creator. For
He can do what He will with His Own. Consequently
the Covenant of God is practically the same as the com- "
mandment of God. So Joshua xxiii. 16 : The Covenant of
Jehovah your God^ which He commanded you. And Jere-
miah xi. 3 — 5 : Cursed be the man that heareth not the words
of this covenant, which I commanded your fathers . . . say-
ingy Obey my voice and do them, according to all which I
command you : so shall ye be my people, and I will be your
God: that I may establish the oath which I sware to your
fathers, to give them a land flowing with milk and honey.
Doubtless the word covenant was chosen, in spite of this
important difference, in order to emphasise the great truth
that God had taken man into special and friendly relation
to Himself and had graciously bound Himself to bestow
upon him definite and specified benefits on definite con-
ditions. But the difference must not be forgotten.

26 Christian Baptism,

In Jeremiah xxxi. 31 — 34 God foretold that in days to
come He would make a new covenant with men, a cove-
nant pledging Him to pardon their sins and to write His
Law upon their hearts. And at the Last Supper, by the
words of its institution already quoted, Christ announced
the immediate ratification of this covenant in His own
approaching death. This New Covenant is an exact
counterpart of that given through Moses, differing from
it precisely as the Gospel differs from the Law. He who
graciously bound Himself to Israel by a special engage-
ment again bound Himself to men in later days, through
the Incarnate Son, in a still closer relationship, promising
to give pardon, and purity, and eternal life to all who
turn from sin, bow to Christ, and believe the good news
announced by Him. And, like the Old Covenant, this New
Covenant lays upon all who hear the Gospel the strongest
possible obligation to fulfil its conditions, an obligation
which no refusal of man can set aside or lessen. For
every covenant of God implies express command.

It is now evident that a man may stand in one of three
relations to the New Covenant. He may fulfil its con-
ditions and thus become a sharer of its blessings. In
this case, and in proportion to his faith and obedience,
he is in the Covenant in the fullest sense. Or he may,
in whole or in part, knowingly refuse to obey the com-
mands of the Covenant and thus reject its offered benefits.
But his refusal by no means puts him altogether outside
the Covenant, or makes it to him as though it had never
been. For his disobedience will be followed by infliction
of the punishment threatened in the Covenant. In this

Covenant, 27

lower, but very real, sense all persons born within sound
of the Gospel, and in proportion to their religious advan-
tages, are, whatever they may do, under the dominion of
the New Covenant. According to the principles therein
set forth they will be judged.

A third class have never heard the Gospel. They also
will be judged ; but not according to the prescription of
Christ, He that disbelieveth shall be condemned. For they
who have not heard can neither believe nor disbelieve.
In this sense, in contrast to the first and second classes,
they are outside the Covenant. Yet they are not outside
the eternal love of God and His great purpose of salva-
tion. But the love of God will treat them on principles
other than those announced in the Gospel of Christ.

The above distinction will greatly help us to under-
stand the purpose and significance of circumcision, of the
Lord's Supper, and of Christian Baptism. Each of these
was a visible memorial of the great historic fact that God
had come near to man, thus laying upon all who hear His
voice, apart from any choice of their own, special obliga-
tions. The Baptisms recorded in the New Testament
were a formal and visible obedience to a definite command
of Christ at the institution of the New Covenant. They
were therefore a memorial of the Covenant, an acknow- /
ledgment of the obligation involved in it, and a con-
fession of faith in its promises. And each administration
of Baptism was a fulfilment of a condition of the Covenant.
Therefore, when accompanied by faith, it w^as in the
highest sense an entrance into the Covenant of God.

2 8 Christian Baptism,

SECTION 11.

THE BAPTISM OF INFANTS.

With the foregoing exposition of Holy Scripture, the
practice of modern Christendom seems at first sight to
be strangely at variance. Except in the Baptist Churches,
a small minority of the Universal Church, Baptism as a
mode of confessing faith in Christ is practically super-
seded in Christian countries by the administration of the
rite to infants, who from their age are incapable of con-
fession or of faith. This remarkable feature of modern
Church life as compared with the ApostoHc Churches
demands now our best attention.

It must be at once admitted that the New Testament
contains no clear proof that infants were baptized in the
days of the Apostles. It is true that St. Paul baptized
the houses of Stephanas and of Lydia, and the Phihppian
Gaoler and all who belonged to him : i Corinthians i. 1 6,
Acts xvi. 15, 33. But this mention of baptized house-
holds by no means proves or suggests that he baptized
infants. For a courtier from Capernaum and Crispus
at Corinth believed with their entire households :
John iv. 54, Acts xviii. 18. So apparently did the
Gaoler : Acts xvi. 34. Cornelius feared God with all his
house : ch. x. 2. And the household of Stephanas was
a firstfruit of Achaia : i Corinthians xvi. 15. This does
not mean that in these five families there were no infants,
or that the infants believed; but , that all capable of

Baptism of Infants, 29

understanding the Gospel believed it. Just so in reference
to Baptism. The early readers of the Book of Acts and
of St. Paul's Epistles knew whether it was usual to
baptize infants. If it was, they would infer that, if in
these three families there were infants, St. Paul baptized
them. If it was not, they would interpret these words
to mean that he baptized all who were of suitable age.
From these passages, therefore, we can draw no inference
whether or not infants were baptized in the Apostolic
Churches. And we have no clearer references in the
New Testament.

In my Commentary on the passage I have endeavoured
to show that i Corinthians vii. 14 affords no evidence
whether infants were or were not baptized in the
Apostohc Churches.

It must also be admitted that in one important point
the Baptism of an infant differs from that of a believer.
In Baptism, an infant is absolutely passive ; whereas a
believer is himself the most conspicuous actor. So great
is this difference that two of the most important assertions
about Baptism in the New Testament are altogether in-
applicable to the Baptism of infants. Certainly, even
though baptized for Christy they have not so put on Christ as
to be in Him sons of God through faith : Galatians iii. 26.
For, to say that infants have faith, is to make St. Paul's
words meaningless. Nor have infants been raised with
Christ through faith in the working of God, who raised Him
from the dead: Colossians ii. 12. Moreover, to speak of
Baptism as a means of salvation, as was implied in the ''
words of Ananias quoted in Acts xxii. 16, is to introduce,

30 Christian Baptism.

if applied to infants, as I shall show in Section iii., an
element utterly opposed to the spirit of the New
Testament.

In spite of all this, the practice of baptizing infants was
apparently universal and undisputed in the former part
of the third century. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, who
was martyred in a.d. 258, in Epistle 58 (Oxford ed.
Ep. 64) speaks of a council in which it was discussed
whether infants should be baptized earlier than the
eighth day, the age prescribed for circumcision, and says
that the council unanimously agreed that Baptism need
not be deferred to that day. This unanimity in a small
detail proves clearly that about the general question of
baptizing infants there was in the province of North
Africa no doubt whatever. Origen, who lived in Egypt
and Palestine and died about a.d. 253, says in his
Homilies on Leviticus viii. 3 that " by the practice of the
Church, Baptism is given to little ones ; " and again
in his Homilies on Luke xiv., *' because by Baptism the
impurities of birth are laid aside, for this reason also
little ones are baptized." In his Commentary on Romans
bk. V. 9, we read that "the Church has received a
tradition from the Apostles that Baptism be given to
little ones." These works exist only in Latin transla-
tions. But their united testimony may be accepted with
confidence as expressing the opinion of Origen. The
earliest definite mention of the Baptism of Infants is at
the close of the second century by Tertullian at Carthage :
On Baptism ch. 18.* He opposes the practice, not on
* See Appendix.

Baptism of Infants. 3 1

the ground of novelty or as inconsistent with the essence
of the rite, but simply on the ground of expediency.
Possibly, the Baptism of infants is referred to somewhat
earlier than this by Irenseus : On Heresies bk. ii. 22. 4.*
But the reference is not clear. The complete confidence
of Cyprian and Origen, in places so far removed as
Carthage and Palestine, and the argument of TertuUian,
prove decisively that the practice must have been pre-
valent at the close of the second century.

The scanty remains of Christian literature earlier than
Irenaeus contain references only to the Baptism of be-
lievers. So in Justin's First Apology (ch. 61) we read,
about converts : '^then they are led by us where there is
water, and are born again in the way in which we our-
selves were born again." Justin then quotes John iii. 3
as referring to Baptism. This language, strange as it
sounds to us, and liable as it undoubtedly is to serious
misinterpretation, is explained by the exposition in my
last paper. The rite itself was easily confused with the
New Birth, of which, as we saw, it was a divinely-ordained
condition.

In view of this conflicting evidence, what shall be our
judgment about the Baptism of infants ? Some will say
that the practice of the overwhelming majority of the
Churches of Christ in all lands and all ages ought to
determine our own conduct ; and that the manifest
blessing of God resting equally during long centuries and
to-day upon those who baptize infants and those who
baptize only believers disproves utterly the suggestion
* See Appendix.

32 Christian Baptism.

that the former are neglecting, and only the latter are
duly observing, the ordinance of Christ. This argument,
which is by no means without force, I cannot accept as
decisive. For the many complications of the Christian
life make the apparent favour of God a very uncertain
standard of the truth of the doctrines believed by those on
whom He smiles. In another paper I shall be compelled
to reject a doctrine accepted for ages by an almost
unanimous consent of the Churohes of Christ. At the
same time, both in doctrine and ritual, a general consent of
Christian belief always demands respectful attention. It
will, I beheve, be found that widely accepted doctrines
and practices contain almost always important elements of
truth, even though possibly these may be obscured by
serious errors.

Others tell us that in the matter of Baptism we have
nothing to do with the practice and belief of later ages ;
that, inasmuch as the Baptism of infants supersedes to a
large extent, where adopted, the Baptism of believers, the
only form of the rite described in the New Testament, and
thus modifies the ordinance of Christ, we are bound to
reject it and to baptize only believers.

This decision I cannot accept. Even a doctrine is not
disproved by the absence of explicit statement in the
Bible. We ask whether it is a fair and logical inference
from other doctrines plainly stated there ; or, if not,
whether it contradicts the teaching of Holy Scripture ?
And according to the answers to these questions we accept
or reject it ; or if, through lack of evidence, decisive
answers fail us, we suspend our judgment. So with

Baptism of Infants. '^^-r^

forms of worship. We must ask, not merely whether
they are prescribed in the New Testament, but whether
they are in harmony with, or contradict, the spirit of the
Gospel.

It would be easy to retort on our Baptist brethren that
we have no instance in the New Testament of a Church
committed to the charge of a single pastor, as are almost
all the Baptist Churches. Indeed it is not too much to
say that the single pastorate is altogether alien to the
spirit and practice of the Apostolic Church. We have no
trace of it in the New Testament. For we have no hint
that the work committed to Timothy (i Timothy i. 3) and
to Titus (Titus i. 5) was permanent. But our brethren
may fairly say that the single pastorate is a legitimate
modification of the Church Order described in the New
Testament. It contradicts no command of Christ. During
long years it has suited and supplied the needs of the
Baptist Churches, and works well for them to-day.
Therefore, although not prescribed in the New Testament,
they accept and retain it as a legitimate development of
Church life, a development in harmony with their history
and circumstances.

How serious is the danger of rejecting an ordinance as
not divine because it is not explicitly taught in the Bible,
will appear at the close of this section. The New Cove-
nant is a life, not a prescription. And we have no proof
that the Christian life assumed at once all the outward
forms needful for its full development. Nor have we
proof that all its early forms were designed to continue
unmodified to the end of time. For these reasons we

3

34 Christian Baptism,

cannot ignore the Christianity of eighteen centuries and
begin to re-erect the Church, taking the New Testament
as a working plan.

I shall endeavour to show that the Baptism of infants
rightly understood and practised is a modification of the
Baptism of believers described in the New Testament, a
modification retaining unimpaired all the significance and
benefit of the original rite and embodying in the best
form a truth of the highest importance ; that this modifi-
cation is supported by the analogy of a similar modifi-
cation expressly ordained by God in the Old Covenant
and embodying the same important truth, a truth common
to both Covenants; that this truth is so important that
to refuse the modification would make the New Covenant
seriously defective in this point as compared with the
Old; and that the Baptism of infants, though not ex-
pressly commanded in the New Testament, is in full
accord with everything there. I shall suggest an explana-
tion of the absence of an express command to baptize
infants ; and shall endeavour to show that refusal to
baptize them because we have no such express command
would, by inevitable logical inference, overturn an all-
important Christian ordinance highly prized by almost all
who refuse Baptism to infants. In the combined force of
these various proofs, I hope to find a clear indication that
in baptizing infants the Universal Church has followed
the guidance of the Spirit of the Truth and has correctly
interpreted the mind of Christ.

In order to appreciate the significance of Baptism, we
shall do well to conceive ourselves present at the adminis-

Baptism of Infants, 35

tration of the rite in each form. And we shall best
reproduce the circumstances of the Apostolic Churches by
conceiving ourselves present on the mission-field, first at
the Baptism of a Hindoo convert and then at that of
his infant child.

At the Baptism of the father, our one absorbing thought
is that by that act the baptized one has definitely and
formally broken away from the heathenism of his early
days and has joined the company of the professed
servants of Christ. At the Baptism of the infant, the
baptized one does nothing whatever. He is the one
person present who is utterly unconscious of the solemnity
of the occasion. Yet the solemnity is as great as before.
We thought then of a brave man's personal decision : we
think now of the infinite spiritual advantages derived from
that decision by the brave man's child, with earnest prayer
that in due time he may follow in his father's steps. So
far then, although each rite is most solemn, the signifi-^
cance of the rites is different.

Is there then nothing in common between them ? Yes.
In each case there has been an application of water ; not
by the baptized one, but by a representative of the Church
of Christ. Thus each rite teaches that God has come
near to man in order to draw man to Himself; and that
God requires, and Himself waits to impart, a purity
beyond man's own attainment. Had not God done this,
and had not the Gospel of the New Covenant been pro-
claimed in India, neither father nor child had been
baptized. In other words, in the Baptism of an infant
we have in full force the primary significance of the

36 Chi'istian Baptism.

sacrament as a visible monument of the Covenant : the
secondary significance as a mode of confessing Christ,
and thus appropriating the benefits of the Covenant, is
apparently lost. This lost element we seek, and shall
find.

A third scene is now before us. The infant has become
a boy, and approaches manhood. Taught by his father,
he bows to Christ, and to-day he is formally received into
the Church. He now occupies a relation to God, to the
New Covenant, and to the Church precisely the same as
that entered by his father at Baptism. He belongs now
to the company of the professed servants of Christ, and
claims all the blessings of the New Covenant. The only
difference is that, whereas the father's Baptism took place
at his confession of faith, the son's Baptism took place
in infancy. In other words, the modification involved in
Infant Baptism is the erection of the monument of the
Covenant years earlier than the appropriation of its
blessings by personal faith and confession. It is evident
at once that this earlier erection of the monument of the
Covenant involves no spiritual loss. For the element
lacking in the Baptism of the Infant is found in the
subsequent confession of the baptized one.

This modification is supported by an important analogy
in the Old Covenant. The circumcision of Isaac differs
from that of Abraham as much as did the Baptism of the
Hindoo's infant from his own Baptism. Just as St. Paul's
statements cannot possibly be applied to the Baptism of
Infants, so we cannot apply to the circumcision of Isaac
the Apostle's words in Romans iv. 1 1 about the circumcision

Baptis7n of Infants, 37

of Abraham, viz., that it was a seal of the righteousness of
the faith which he had while in uncircumcision. In each case
this inappHcabihty reveals the great difference between the
two forms of the same rite.

Why then was Isaac circumcised ? If the rite was to
Abraham a seal of personal faith, why not let Isaac wait
till he is old enough to exercise similar faith ? For,
certainly, the faith of the father cannot save the child.
If Isaac is to stand in his father's relation to God he must
himself walk in his father's steps. Reasonable as our
questions seem, they are silenced by God's command that
Isaac and all infant sons of circumcised fathers receive the
sacred rite.

The reason of this command is not far to seek. By his
birth in the family of the Father of the Faithful, Isaac was
placed, before his personal action began, in a relation to
God very different from that of the uncircumcised children
around, a position of greater privilege and responsibility.
And by the standard of this higher privilege Isaac must
be judged. So great and solemn is the responsibility
resting in all ages upon the children of godly parents that
we do not wonder at its formal recognition and embodi-
ment, by the express command of God, in the circumcision
of infants.

We have now found in the rite of circumcision the great
difference noted above between the Baptism of a believer
and that of an infant. Very different were Isaac's
thoughts about his own circumcision from those of
Abraham about his. To the latter, the rite recalled the
promise of God, the struggle and victory of his own faith,

38 Christian Baptism.

and the Covenant with God in the day he believed the
great promise. To Isaac the rite recalled the privilege
and responsibility of being a son of such a father.

Here then we have a modification similar to the modi-
fication involved in Infant Baptism. In each case, the
second rite can be understood only in the light of the
first. In each case, the primary significance of the rite,
as expounded by God at the institution of Circumcision,
is retained unimpaired. In each case, the modification
was rendered needful by the different relation of father
and infant to the Covenant with God. And in each case,
it embodies important truth.

Now the relation of children to the God of their fathers
is an important element common to the two Covenants.
And its embodiment in the visible monument of the Cove-
nant is as important in the one case as the other. In the
Baptism of Infants it is suitably recognised. If it be not
thus recognised, the New Covenant is in this important
point defective as compared with the Old. And this defect
would be very conspicuous and unaccountable to thought-
ful Jewish converts to Christianity. Indeed it would be
a strong argument for retaining in the Church of Christ,
even among Gentiles, the rite of circumcision.

Together with this similarity of the Covenants, it is
right to notice a difference. The Old Covenant was
primarily national, and personal only by inference : the
New Covenant is the reverse. Consequently, whereas
Christ required from each believer in each generation
formal confession of faith, no such formal confession was
required under the Old Covenant from those circumcised

Baptism of Infants. 39

in infancy. But this difference does not affect the simi-
larity just noted. We have abundant proof that in each
Covenant the personal favour of God was obtained by
personal faith and obedience.

It has been suggested that the defect mentioned above
might be supplied by a special dedicatory rite for infants,
Baptism being retained for believers. A sufficient answer
to this suggestion is that such attempts have hitherto, with
few exceptions, always failed through lack of authority.
Moreover, the relation of the children of Christian parents
to the New Covenant, a relation more important than life
itself, can be satisfactorily set forth only by erection in
infancy of the monument of the Covenant, in token that,
apart from his own action or choice, the child is placed by
his birth under its solemn responsibilities.

In the light of all this, we will listen again to the words
of Christ at the institution of the Sacrament of Baptism.
He bade the Apostles make-disciples of all the nations, i.e.,
to bring them as pupils into His school. He also bade
them, while doing this, to baptize the nations and to teach
them whatever He had commanded. Here are three
transitive verbs with the same accusative case. To make-
disciples, is placed first, and in the imperative mood, as
being the one great and pressing work laid upon the
Apostles : compare i Corinthians i. 17. How nobly it was
undertaken, we learn from the Book of Acts. To teach
the commands of Christ, was possible, for adults, only to
those wiUing to become His disciples. But in our day
this commission is performed by every Sunday-school
teacher who teaches the words of Jesus to the little ones

46' Christian Baptism,

around him, even though they be not yet avowed servants
of Christ. The charge to baptize all the nations could be
obeyed by the Apostles, in the case of adults, only in those
willing to become His disciples. But the infant children
of Christians are under their parents' control. There is
therefore nothing to prevent their Baptism. And there is
nothing in the words of Christ to forbid it. Nor is there
in Mark xvi. i6. For Christ is speaking of those to whom
the Apostles would preach the Gospel. And, to them, the
only way of salvation was through the waters of Baptism.
Now we have seen that administration of the rite in infancy
involves no loss, and confers great spiritual gain. This
gain is to us a sufficient indication of the will of Christ.
We therefore bring our little ones to the sacred rite,
believing that by so doing we are obeying His command
in the form He would most approve.

Some will ask, If this is the mind of Christ, why is it
not plainly stated in the New Testament ? We can only
suggest one or two explanations. It was needful to con-
centrate attention, at the tremendous crisis caused by the
departure of Christ, upon the one work of gaining new
converts. We can conceive that, in order to give great
prominence to this. Baptism was at first administered only
as a badge of personal confession. Moreover, as already
said, the Gospel is a life developing outward forms from
its own inward activity, not a legal prescription. Be this
as it may, the force of this question as an objection is
completely met by considering the credentials of another
institution of Christianity.

We have no hint in the New Testament that the first

Baptisin of Infants. 41

day of the week is to take the place of the seventh as the
divinely ordained weekly rest. That it is called the Lord's
Day, by no means proves this ; nor do the other scanty
references. Yet we keep the first day of the week as a
sacred rest in perfect confidence that we are both doing
the will of Christ and obeying the Fourth Commandment.
Why is this ? Because the great and manifest benefits
of the weekly rest assure us that the words spoken at
Sinai were designed for all ages and all nations ; because
the change from the seventh day to the first leaves these
benefits unimpaired, and embodies an important principle,
viz., the change of Covenant ; and because Christ paid to
the first day a silent honour greater than was ever paid
to the seventh day. Taken by themselves, these reasons
would hardly remove doubt. Viewed in the light of the
practice of the Church in all countries and during long
ages, they produce complete conviction. In other words,
we accept with perfect confidence from the Bible read in
the light of the practice of the early Church that which
we could not receive with like confidence from the Bible
alone.

It is worthy of note that in America, the fertile hotbed
of ecclesiastical curiosities, there are some who carry their
rejection of Infant Baptism to the logical result of returning
to Saturday as the weekly rest. In view of their folly,
let us beware lest, by clinging to the letter of Holy Scrip-
ture, we destroy its spirit.

Christ's reception of little ones, although it has no
express reference to Baptism, cannot here be passed
over in silence. For that so apparently trifling an act

42 Christian Baptism.

was recorded in each of the synoptist Gospels, in Matthew
xix. 13-15, Mark x. 13-16, Luke xviii. 15-17, reveals its
spiritual significance. By bringing their infants, these
Jewish parents testified their faith that all human life
from its early beginning was an object of care to Christ,
that children were included in the purpose of mercy He
came to accomplish, and stand in a definite relation to the
New Covenant. By receiving and blessing their little
ones, Christ accepted and rewarded their faith. The same
faith and the same truth find expression in the rite of
Infant Baptism. In thus bringing our Httle ones to Christ
we do but imitate an action which He permitted and
defended.

To sum up. We hold fast the rite of Infant Baptism
because it embodies, in the best way we can conceive, a
truth of the highest importance underlying the kingdom
of God on earth in all its stages and needing ever to be
kept in view, viz., that from its earliest beginning and in
spite of anything man can do Christ claims for His own
all human life, and claims especially those who from
infancy are surrounded by godly influences. It is true
that the great spiritual gain derived from the formal
embodiment of this and other allied truths involves a
modification of the rite of Baptism as described in the
New Testament. But the modification is caused by
modified circumstances. It is in harmony with the
broad principles of the New Covenant. It contradicts no
command of Christ. And it has a counterpart in a similar
modification prescribed under the Old Covenant. More-
over, the modification is no work of ours. We do but

Baptism of Infants. 43

follow the practice of a vast majority of the Churches of
Christ in all ages since the early dawn of Church history.
Moreover, all arguments against the Baptism of Infants
involve a principle which would overturn the polity of
the Baptist Churches. For the best that can be said for
a solitary pastorate is that it is a legitimate modification of
the altogether different Church-polity described in the New
Testament. The same principle would completely cut off
the Christian Day of Rest from the weekly rest prescribed
at Sinai. For the change of day is in no way commanded
in Holy Scripture. In view of all this, none shall forbid
us to bring our little ones to the sacred rite, thus present-
ing them to God as like ourselves needing a purity which
only He can give, " nothing doubting that He favourably
alloweth this godly work of ours in bringing this child to
His holy Baptism."

Note. — From the Jewish Gemara, not earlier than the second cen-
tury after Christ, we learn that converts from heathenism to Judaism
were not only circumcised but baptized. Of this there is apparently
no mention in any earlier writings. But the hostility between Jews
-and Christians makes it unlikely that after Christian Baptism had
become common a similar rite would be adopted by the Jews. On
the other hand, the bathing of proselytes was in complete harmony
with the principles of the Law of Moses. It is therefore more
probable than not that this undoubted Jewish practice was as early
as the days of Christ. Usually, though apparently not always, the
young children of such converts were also baptized, as undoubtedly
their boys were circumcised. This proselyte Baptism, if then prac-
tised, would naturally suggest the Baptism of the young children of
converts to Christianity. But we note that only children born before
their fathers' conversion received this Jewish Baptism. This differ-
ence from Christian Baptism, and the uncertainty about the date of
its origin, make the Baptism of proselytes an uncertain basis for

44 Christian Baptism,

argument. Indisputably, the circumcision of the young children of
Jewish proselytes would raise a question about the position of the
children of converts to Christianity. If proselyte Baptism were then
practised, it would make this question still more urgent. And to
this question the Christian Baptism of Infants is both the logical
and the historical answer.

SECTION III.

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION.

We come now to consider a doctrine accepted with
general consent in the Ancient Church from the third
century onwards, accepted now by the Roman CathoKc
Church, and asserted in the formularies of the Anglican
Church ; the doctrine commonly known as Baptismal
Regeneration.

As convenient examples of this doctrine, I shall quote
first an early Christian writer and then the Anglican
Prayer Book.

Augustine, in his treatise on Rebuke and Grace y ch. 1 8,
says : " God makes to be strangers to His kingdom,
whither He sends their parents, some of the sons of
His friends, i.e., of regenerated and good believers, who
go forth hence in childhood without Baptism ; for whom
He, in whose power are all things, might, if He would,
procure the grace of this font." We have similar teaching
in Grace and Freewill^ ch. 44 ; in Predestination of the

Baptismal Regeneration. 45

Saints, ch. 24; and in 77?^ Gift of Perseverance, ch. 21.
Augustine teaches clearly that baptized infants dying in
infancy are saved, and that infants not baptized are lost.
Such teaching, few will now maintain. That it was once
generally and confidently believed, warns us that general
consent is no sure test of truth.

As a concise and clear statement of the doctrine I am
about to discuss, I shall quote the Catechism contained in
the Anglican Prayer Book. The candidate for confirmation
is there taught that in Baptism, which in nearly every
case was administered in infancy, he ^^ was made a member
of Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom
of heaven." In other words, the Anglican Church declares
that infants stand, after their Baptism, in a relation to
Christ, to God, and to the kingdom of heaven, which
was not theirs before the rite was administered.

In harmony with this teaching, in the order for the Public
Baptism of Infants, thanks are given to God that He has
been " pleased to regenerate this infant with " His " Holy
Spirit." This doctrine cannot, however, be fairly deduced
from the Atiicles of Religion. But it is not contradicted
in any part of the Prayer Book.

It is right to say that an eminent Anglican, Dr. Mozley,
in a very able and impartial work on The Baptismal Con-
troversy, Part ii., chaps. 2 and 3, endeavours to show that
the above statements, although literal in form, have not
necessarily a literal meaning ; and that they are to be taken
in a hypothetical sense and as a charitable supposition.
A hypothetical assertion is one which claims to be true,
not always, but sometimes, not absolutely, but only under

46 Christian Baptism,

certain conditions. Unfortunately, Dr. Mozley does not
tell us the conditions on which the assertions of the
Catechism are true of baptized infants. He suggests that
these assertions are not inconsistent with the teaching of
Calvin that all persons are predestined by God, some to
eternal life, others to death. If this teaching be admitted,
the charitable supposition would be that the baptized
infant is one of the elect ; and the assertions of the
Prayer Book would be that elect infants are placed by
their Baptism in a new relation to God, and that in
Baptism the Holy Spirit works in them the change
described as Regeneration. Be this as it may, the
Anglican Catechism asserts plainly that, either always
or sometimes, infants are placed by their Baptism in a
new relation to Christ, to God, and to the kingdom of
heaven. To deny to the words before us this meaning, is
to destroy all definiteness of human language.

F. W. Robertson says (Sermon 4, Second Series) that
*' Baptism makes a child of God in the sense in which
coronation makes a king." But no one would say that on
his coronation day he was made king. The reign begins,
and is always reckoned, not from coronation but from
accession. Not a few kings whom all acknowledge to be
such were never crowned. But whatever may be the case
with crowned kings the words of the AngHcan Catechism
evidently mean that before the rite the baptized one was
not, and in the rite became, a child of God.

We now seek the meaning of the three phrases by
which the Catechism describes the new state entered at
Baptism.

Baptismal Regeneration. 47

The second term, child of God^ and an equivalent term,
son of God, are frequent in the New Testament, almost
always in one definite sense, and always in senses closely
allied. And, because of its frequency there in this one
definite sense, it must be understood in the Catechism in
the same sense, unless we have plain indication to the
contrary. Certainly it will be so understood by the mass
of those who use the Catechism. The meaning of this
phrase in the New Testament is open to no doubt.
St. Paul teaches in Rom. viii. 14, that so many as are led
by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God, and that his
readers have received the Spirit of Adoption (or son-making),
that in Him they cry Abba, Father, and that the Spirit
Himself bears witness with their spirit that they are children
of God. The Apostle adds that if they are children, they
are also heirs, heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ. In
Galatians iii. 26, he teaches that his readers are sons of God
through faith, inasmuch as so many of them as have been
baptized for Christ have put on Christ. Not essentially
different is the sense of the same phrase in Matthew v. 9,
The peacemakers . . . shall be called sons of God; and in
verse 45, that ye may become sons of your Father in
Heaven. Throughout the New Testament the sons or
children of God are persons who occupy a relation to God
not shared by the wicked or the unbelieving. So especially
I John iii. 10: In this are manifest the children of God and
the children of the Devil. In Acts xvii. 28, when speaking
of the relation of the human race to God, St. Paul avoids
the phrases before us, and quotes the words of a
Greek poet : For we are His offspring. He avoids them

48 Christian Baptism,

even when expounding this quotation : Being then an
offspring of God. The only exception to the statement
above is the prodigal son : Luke xv. 24. But we cannot
conceive that he became his father's son by any such rite
as Infant Baptism.

In harmony with the above, we learn from i Peter i. 3, 23
that the readers have been begotten or born again. And
from I John v. i, 4 we learn that all who believe that
Jesus is the Christ have been born of God, and that all
such overcome the world. They do not and cannot sin :
I John iii. 6, 9.

The phrase, member of Christy recalls St. Paul's teaching
that the Church is the Body of Christ, and that his readers
are members of that Body : so I Cor. xii. 27, Ye are the
body of Christ and severally members thereof Now the
writers of the New Testament always assume that all
Church-members are already justified by personal faith
and are by faith adopted into the family of God. Of
this, some clear proofs have just been given ; and many
others equally clear might be added. This assumption
by no means implies that there were in the Apostolic
Churches no false members. But these were left out of
sight. The writers charitably assume that all Church-
members are what they profess to be, viz., by personal
faith members of the family of God, members of the living
Body of which Christ is the Head, and in virtue of their
relation to God, sharers of the inheritance belonging to
Christ and to those whom He is not ashamed to call His
brethren.

Here then we find in the New Testament the three

Baptismal Regeneration, 49

phrases used in the AngHcan Catechism. And we find
that both in the New Testament and in the Catechism the
three terms are synonymous. This careful and double
repetition proves clearly that the sense which these
phrases in the Catechism are intended to convey is the
sense conveyed by them in the New Testament, at least
so far as the same sense can be understood of believers
and of infants. In other words, the Anglican Church
teaches that in Baptism infants are placed in living union
with Christ, are received into the number of God's
adopted children, and obtain a right to a share in the
heritage of the brethren of Christ.

This plain teaching of her formularies is accepted and
defended by not a few writers of the Anglican Church.
As a good example of such writers I may refer to two
very popular and able works. Church Doctrine — Bible
Truth and The Second Adam and the New Birth, both
by M. F. Sadler. While rejecting as untrue and very
dangerous much of the teaching of these attractive
volumes, I cheerfully recognise their Christian tone and
uniform fairness. With respectful attention we ask Mr.
Sadler for proof of this remarkable doctrine so different
from the general tenor of the New Testament. We may
fairly demand clear evidence that it was taught either by
Christ or by His Apostles.

In chapter iv. of his work on The Second Adam, Mr.
Sadler endeavours to prove that infants are '^ the proper
recipients" of the Sacrament of Baptism. This I have
already myself attempted to prove. But the argument of
Mr. Sadler seems to me most unsatisfactory. Possibly

4

50 Christian Baptism.

the defectiveness of this proof attracts less attention
because almost all his readers have already accepted his
conclusion.

The title of chapter vi. asserts that " the Apostles
hold all baptized Christians to be members of Christ."
This is proved by many quotations from the Epistles
of St. Paul, St. John, and St. Peter. These proofs, with
certain small exceptions, I heartily endorse. Undoubt-
edly the Apostles assume that their readers are members
of Christ, children of God, and inheritors of the kingdom
of heaven. They assume also, as Mr. Sadler properly
shows, that their readers entered this state of blessed
privilege through the gate of Baptism.

Mr. Sadler then goes on to assume silently that whatever
is said in the New Testament about Baptism and baptized
persons is true also of baptized infants. He assumes
this in complete unconsciousness of the absolute difference
between a Baptism which is a personal confession of faith
and another Baptism in which the baptized one does
nothing whatever. This oversight vitiates his entire
argument. For the difference between the two rites
which Mr. Sadler confounds is fundamental. To teach
that to a heathen or a Jew Baptism is the only way
into the blessings of the New Covenant, is in complete
accord with the broad principles of that Covenant.
For faith in Christ is the one conspicuous condition
of all the blessings of the Covenant, and Christ re-
quired from His servants confession of their faith
and ordained Baptism as the formal mode of con-
fession. But to teach that an infant is brought into a

Baptismal Regeneration, 51

new relation to God, or undergoes an inward change,
by means of an outward rite of which he is utterly uncon-
scious, is to introduce an element altogether alien to the
whole tenor of the Gospel. For such teaching we must
have plain proof. Certainly it is not proved, or in any
way supported, by assertions of Holy Scripture about the
spiritual effect of the Baptism of believers.

The teaching I now combat would break all analogy
between the two Sacraments. For even the Roman
Church admits that the benefits received from the Lord's
Supper depend upon, and are in proportion to, the faith
of the receiver. A favourite Roman Catholic argument
is that just as a dead body cannot receive nutriment from
bread so a lifeless soul cannot receive nourishment from
the body and blood of Christ. Certainly each one comes
of his own free choice to receive the sacred symbols.
But the infant is carried to the font without any choice
of his own, and is wholly unconscious of the rite ad-
ministered. Consequently, no appeal, in proof of the
doctrine before us, can be made to the nature of a
sacrament as such. For the blessings derived from the
only other sacrament ordained by Christ are indisputably
contingent on the faith of the receiver.

The teaching I am endeavouring to disprove is far
more momentous in its results than at first sight appears.
If blessings wrought by the Spirit of God follow Baptism
as such, they do so by whomsoever the rite is administered,
even though in an utterly frivolous spirit, or by a wicked
man. For if the validity of Baptism depends on the
devoutness or the character of the person baptizing, the

52 Christian Baptism,

infant baptized cannot in future years use with any con-
fidence the language put into his hps by the Catechism.
It follows then from the teaching before us that the waving
of the dripping hand of a thoughtless or bad man works
invariably, if a certain ritual be followed, in an unconscious
infant an actual spiritual change and places that infant in
a new relation to Christ, to God, and to the kingdom
of heaven. This is salvation, not by faith, but by leger-
demain.

It is true that the sacrifices of the Old Covenant were
sometimes offered, under God's appointment, by bad
priests. But we are never taught that these sacrifices
were channels of direct spiritual blessing in the sense
asserted by the Anglican Catechism about the rite of
Infant Baptism. Moreover, God made Himself in some
sense responsible for this abuse by ordaining, in the
preparatory and imperfect Covenant, that Aaron's sons,
without reference to their character, and they only, should
perform the rites of the Tabernacle. But we have no
such express ordinance in the New Covenant. The
doctrine before us, like the errors in Galatia, tends to
bring down the New Covenant with its greater blessings
to the level of the Old.

Nor is this all. If the hands of the man who performs
the rite of Baptism convey, by their simple movement,
spiritual blessing so great, we naturally ask. Whose are
the hands to which this mysterious power is given ? It
is true that even the Roman Church admits as valid in
cases of necessity Baptism by a lay-man or by a woman.
But such cases are evidently exceptional. The power to

Baptismal Regeneration, 53

distribute the gift of eternal life cannot be universal. It
must be derived from a competent authority. At once
come in questions of ecclesiastical pedigree. And these
raise questionings about the right of the Anglican Church
in the sixteenth century to rebel, under compulsion of
Henry and Elizabeth, against an ecclesiastical authority
v^^hich it had long recognised and which traces its descent
from the Apostles of Christ. No wonder that many,
claiming this mysterious prerogative, have felt bound in
consistency themselves to bow to the authority of the
Church of Rome. An old teacher once said (Galatians
V. 3) very earnestly to some Gentiles who were on the
eve of accepting the rite of circumcision that they were
thereby binding themselves to keep the whole Mosaic
Law. And I am compelled mournfully to believe that
they who teach that any spiritual blessing, be it an inward
work of the Holy Spirit or a changed relation to God,
follows invariably the administration of Baptism to an
unconscious infant, are unwittingly rivetting the fetters of
spiritual bondage.

The above protest by no means implies that no spiritual
blessing to the infant accompanies Baptism. Far be it
from me to attempt to limit the mercy of God towards a
little one presented to Him by the believing hands of
loving parents, hands held up by the faith and prayer of
the people of God. For, to give blessing to one person in
answer to the believing prayer of others, is in complete
harmony with principles underlying the whole administra-
tion of the kingdom of God. My protest is directed only
against the teaching that spiritual blessing follows invari-

54 Christian Baptism.

ably the performance of an outward rite, teaching which
I have shown to be involved in the formulary quoted.

One thing all will admit. For teaching so remarkable,
so unlike everything else in the New Covenant, and
involving results so serious, we may fairly claim plain
proof. What is the proof adduced ? Simply the teach-
ing of the New Testament about the Baptism of Believers.
In order to prove that certain blessings are conveyed by
Baptism to an unconscious infant, we are reminded that
in the New Testament similar blessings are said to be
obtained by faith, that Christ required this faith to be
confessed by reception of the rite of Baptism, and that
consequently Baptism is in a few places spoken of as a
condition or means of salvation. Surely never was a
great and unstable and dangerous structure erected on so
untrustworthy a foundation. That this doctrine receives
no support from the analogy of the Lord's Supper, I have
already shown. There is not one word in the New
Testament which even suggests in the slightest degree
that spiritual blessings are, or may be, conveyed to an
infant by a rite of which he is utterly unconscious. And
the suggestion contradicts the broad principles underlying
the kingdom of God.

The only appeal remaining is to the general consent of
the Churches in the third century. But this I cannot,
in so serious a matter, accept as decisive. For I have
no proof that the Churches, even when unanimous, were
infallible. Moreover, to receive their judgment as deci-
sive, would compel me to admit other doctrines against
which my intellectual and moral and spiritual nature

Baptismal Regeneration. 55

revolts. I have no reliable witnesses of the teaching of
Christ and His Apostles except the Books of the New
Testament. And these I find sufficient to remove all
doubt in all matters of importance.

In a recent work on Regeneration in Baptism^ by G.
E. O'Brien, we are told on page 160, about infants who
die unbaptized, *^So far as we can judge from the teaching
of the Revealed Word of God, we must regard them as
lost. Yet, O God, have mercy on their poor little souls,
for Jesus' sake ! . . . As, therefore, in cases of wilful
neglect the parent must blame himself for the starvation
of his child's body ; under similar circumstances he must
blame himself, and not God, for the loss of his child's
soul." In other words, Mr. O'Brien follows, timidly and
at a distance, in the light of the nineteenth century, the
terrible teaching of Augustine quoted above. Let us take
warning from this extreme case.

The results attained in this section are only negative.
The prevalence and prestige of the doctrine of Baptismal
Regeneration made disproof of it needful before any
attempt to build up positive truth. The real significance
and benefit of the Baptism of Infants will be discussed
in the next section.

56 Christian Baptism,

SECTION IV,

THE SIGNIFICANCE AND BENEFIT OF THE BAPTISM
OF INFANTS.

The absence of any express reference in the New Testa-
ment compels us to seek for the significance of Infant
Baptism in the broad principles of the New Covenant
viewed in the light of all that we know about the spiritual
position of the children of Christian parents. To this
source of information we turn with the more confidence
because we saw in Section i. that the whole teaching of
the New Testament about the Baptism of Believers is a
logical development of the principles of the New Covenant
in the light of Christ's original commission to baptize. In
other words, the Baptism of Believers does not stand alone,
but is an organic outgrowth of the essential principles of
the New Covenant. Such must also be the Baptism of
Infants.

Just as in the Gospel Revealed Truth is presented to
the mind in audible words, so in the two Christian Sacra-
ments and in the ritual of the Old Covenant Truth is
presented to the mind in visible symbols. Very important
is this double presentation. The Word explains the Sym-
bol : the Symbol, which is more easily preserved than is
abstract teaching, calls attention to the explanatory Word.
Each of the two Sacraments embodies the historic fact that
God has come near to man and has entered into Covenant

Significance and Benefit. 57'

with him. The Lord's Supper teaches in silent eloquence
that this Covenant rests mysteriously upon the blood and
death of Christ. Baptism teaches that in the Covenant
God requires and imparts a purity beyond man's own reach.
The Baptism of Infants teaches that even the innocence of
childhood needs purification at the hands of God, that the
children of Christian parents are from their earliest days
encompassed by the New Covenant, and that, whatever
their future action or choice may be, they will be treated
by God on the principles of the Covenant. In other
words, Christ claims our little ones for His own : and
from that claim their subsequent action, be it what it may,
cannot release them.

We now see that the children of Christian parents stand
in a very definite and solemn relation to the New Cove-
nant. This relation involves a threefold responsibilit}^
resting upon baptized children, upon the parents who
brought them to Baptism, and upon the Church and the
pastor who administered the sacred rite. If then Baptism
be a monument of the Covenant, it must be a monument
of this threefold responsibility.

Each administration of Infant Baptism reminds us that,
before we were born, for us had been shed the blood of
the Covenant ; that around our opening intelligence shone
the light of the Gospel, which must be to us either the
Light of Life or a consuming fire ; and that from loving
lips in early days we heard the story of the cross, which
must be to us either an eternal song or eternal shame.
Far different our lot, had we been born in the darkness
of heathendom. This difference with its tremendous

58 Christian Baptism,

responsibilities, the Sacrament we are considering sets
before the eyes of all those present.

Even where parental influence is defective or bad, this
defect does not destroy the responsibility just mentioned.
For the Gospel exerts a mighty influence even beyond the
immediate surroundings of those loyal to Christ. Certainly
all children taken to Christian worship or instruction hear
the words of Christ. And in proportion to the influences
thus brought to bear upon them is their responsibility.

The Baptism of Infants also embodies a responsibility
resting upon their parents. The constant intercourse at
home, the dependence of the child upon his parents for
the necessaries and the comforts of life, and the love
evoked by parental care, give to parents an influence
altogether unique, and a unique opportunity of leading
their little ones to bow to Christ. To use to the utter-
most this opportunity, every Christian parent is bound
b}^ his loyalty to Christ, by his love to his children, and
by the solemn responsibilities resting upon them. Indeed
we cannot doubt that the training of children to serve the
God of their fathers was one chief aim of the institution
by the Creator of the relation of parents and children.
The evident value of such training reveals the sacredness
of family life.

Notice carefully that these responsibilities are not
created, or even increased, nor is the child's relation to
the New Covenant in any way altered, by Baptism. For
even if the parents refused to bring their little one to the
sacred rite, they would still be bound, under an obhgation
most solemn, to use all their powers to win him for Christ,

Significance and Benefit. 59

and the child would in subsequent years be bound, with
an obligation proportionate to his reHgious advantages, to
accept Christ. By his birth under Christian influences he
is already one oi the sons of the Covenant : Acts iii. 25.

A similar, though less, responsibility rests upon the
Church to which the parents belong, and especially on
Christian pastors. The susceptibility of childhood affords
an opportunity, soon to pass away, of winning children
for Christ. And this opportunity creates a corresponding
responsibility. Every Church and every pastor, and in
some measure every Christian man and woman, is bound
to do all he can to bring to Christ all the children within
reach of his influence.

In this case we notice that when parents bring an infant
to Baptism they thus claim for him in due time religious
oversight by the pastor and a share of the religious
advantages afforded by the Church. This opens to the
pastor and to the Church an opportunity of doing good
to the child, and thus lays upon them increased respon-
sibility. Children brought to us in infancy have thus a
special claim upon our best attention.

Such then is the significance of the Baptism of Infants.
It is an embodiment in symbolic form of the New Cove-
nant, of the infant's relation to it, and of the various
responsibilities involved in that relation. And the embodi-
ment is the most suitable we can conceive. No one asked
the unconscious infant whether he would be baptized.
Nor did God ask him whether he would be born in a
Christian family. Yet by the responsibilities following
inevitably the surroundings of his birth he will be judged.

6o Christian Baptism.

Unstained as he is by personal sin, he yet needs a purifi-
cation which only God can give, as time will soon show.
But before the innate tendencies to evil reveal themselves,
this holy Sacrament declares that God has already provided
the needed purification.

The benefits of the Baptism of Infants are derived from
the truths therein embodied. For the presentation of truth
is God's chosen means of saving men. And the benefit of
the rite is in proportion to the value of the truth therein
set forth. In the Gospel, the Truth operates for man's
salvation through a spoken word : in the Sacraments the
same truth operates through visible symbols. And in
each case the Truth is the channel through which the
Spirit of God breathes into man, and nourishes in him,
divine life. For He is the Spirit of the Truth : John xiv.
17. Without His presence even the Truth is powerless
and dead. But, in order to become a channel of blessing,
the Truth must come into contact with man's thought,
and evoke faith. It does this, by God's ordinance, through
the preached and the symbolic Word, which thus become
to us the hand of God. This presence of the Spirit
operating through audible and visible forms is the great
mystery underlying both the Gospel and the two Sacra-
ments. In each case the abiding result depends upon the
reception by faith of the truth thus presented. In the
Baptism of Infants, inasmuch as the baptized one is
incapable of faith, the immediate benefit is for the parents,
for the pastor baptizing, and for the congregation present
at the rite. But to these the truth set forth is of the
highest importance. To those baptized in infancy the

Significance and Benefit, 6i

spiritual blessings of the Covenant can be appropriated
only by subsequent personal faith. The early admini-
stration of the rite teaches that these blessings are waiting
for the child's acceptance : and that from infancy Christ
claims him.

Inasmuch as the Truth is the divinely appointed
channel through which the Spirit of God imparts spiritual
life and nourishment, and Baptism is a divinely appointed
mode of presenting the Truth, we need not hesitate to
say that Baptism is not only a declaration of Truth but
is also a divinely ordained channel through which God
bestows spiritual blessing. But all analogy assures us
that the immediate blessing is only for those who with
intelligent faith embrace the Truth thus presented. Nor
need the blessing be limited to the time of administration.
Just as the Gospel is frequently operative long after the
preacher's voice is silent, so the Sacrament of Baptism,
administered in the Church at intervals, to infants or to
believers, is an abiding monument of certain great Truths
fruitful in blessing even when their embodiment is not
actually in view.

That Baptism conveys to infants any immediate
spiritual blessing, we have no proof or presumption in
the New Testament. For the blessings there connected
with Baptism are contingent on faith, the one condition
of all the blessings of the New Covenant. And infants
are incapable of faith. Moreover, that actual spiritual
benefits follow invariably the administration of a sacred
rite, is without analogy in the known Kingdom of God.

To sum up. In a convert to Christianity, Baptism

62 Christian Baptism,

is a formal confession of faith in Christ in a mode specially
prescribed by Him. To the baptized convert, therefore,
in some sense all the blessings of salvation are results
of Baptism. For without it they could not, in ordinary
cases, have been His. The peculiar form of the rite is
also a visible presentation of important truth, viz., that in
Christ God has come near to man in order to give him
a purity beyond his reach yet absolutely needful for
entrance into heaven. The truth thus presented is, to
those who apprehend it by faith, the chosen channel
through which the Holy Spirit conveys to men spiritual
nutriment and hfe.

By those baptized in infancy these blessings in their
fulness are obtained only by subsequent faith and con-
fession. But the rite administered in infancy proclaims
to all those who have heard the Gospel that the blessings
of the New Covenant, symbolized in their Baptism, are
waiting for their acceptance, and that Christ claims for
Himself human Hfe from its earliest dawn. The pre-
sentation of this important truth, and the blessings it
imparts to those who rightly receive it, are the immediate
and inestimable benefits of Infant Baptism.

Baptized C/nldreiz, 63

SECTION V.

THE RELATION OF BAPTIZED CHILDREN TO THE
CHURCH

Before discussing the above question we shall say a few
more words about the relation of the children of godly
parents to the New Covenant.

That this relation is very real and definite, we have
already seen. For children brought up under Christian
influences, will be saved or lost according as they accept
or reject the Gospel of Christ. They are in the Covenant
in the sense that they will be judged on the principles
therein set forth ; and thus differ greatly from many who
pass through life without having heard the name of Christ,
and who will therefore be judged on other principles.
And we have seen that their responsibility is in propor-
tion to their religious advantages.

But we have no reason to suppose that the rite of
Baptism changes the infant's relation to the Covenant.
For that relation is determined by his nearness to the
Gospel of Christ. And the entire teaching of the New
Testament about Baptism is valid only of those whose
Baptism is a confession of personal faith. We therefore
cannot doubt that the child of a pious Baptist belongs
as much to Christ, and is as near to Christ, as a child
presented to God in Baptism. Yet, if the argument of
this treatise be correct, we may well believe that the
Baptist Churches are losers through their failure rightly

64 Christian Baptism,

to interpret the mind of the Spirit of God. Admitting
this, we may affirm that Baptism does not in itself alter
an infant's relation to God, but simply sets forth a most
solemn relation already existing in virtue of his birth
under Christian influences. The actual spiritual benefit
of the rite is for those who intelligently, and with faith,
apprehend its significance.

Our answer to the main question now before us
depends upon our conception of the Church. This we
will now consider.

The writers of the Epistles of the New Testament
always assume that their readers have personal spiritual
life. St. Paul declares that his readers at Corinth have
been justified, that those at Rome have been made free from
sin, and have become servants to God, that those in Galatia
are all sons of God through faith : i Corinthians vi. 11,
Romans vi. 22, Galatians iii. 26. Yet some of these
were babes in Christ, and their conduct open to severe
rebuke. To others St. John writes because their sins are
forgiven, and says that he and they know that they have
passed out of death into life: I John ii. 12, iii. 14; com-
pare iii. 24, iv. 13, v. 19. This assumption implies
clearly that the members of the Apostolic Churches pro-
fessed to have personal and saving faith in Christ. But
it does not imply that there were no false or unworthy
members. Any such are left out of sight. The Apostles
charitably assume that their readers are what they pro-
fess to be. But their language is inexplicable had there
not been a profession of personal faith. We may there-
fore describe the Apostolic Churches as the company in

Baptized Children. 65

any one place of the professed servants of Christ, these
being united, by the ordinance of Christ, for mutual pro-
tection and help in His service. And to maintain in
our day this conception of the Church is of the highest
importance. For the Church lives by the personal faith
and life of each of its members.

Of the Church thus understood, infants cannot, in the
full sense, be members. They who have not yet entered
the battle of life do not occupy the position of those who
have already gained a most important victory. Born as
they are under the light of the Gospel, they can enter
the company of the servants of Christ only through the
gate of personal faith and confession. To overlook this
essential difference, cannot raise the little ones: it will
inevitably lower our conception of the Church. And, if
it obscure the absolute need, in our children, of personal
faith and confession, it will greatly injure them.

That infants do not occupy the position of professed
believers, is evident also from the fact that to number
them with such would make all enumeration of members
meaningless. I have heard of ministers enrolling their
infants as members of the Church. Were these infants
counted as members ? If so, here we have rehef from
our frequent regrets that our numbers increase so slowly,
or occasionally recede. Count baptized infants, and at
once we have an immense ingathering ; and our number-
ing becomes ridiculous. Unimportant as enumeration
may seem, the impossibility and absurdity of counting
baptized infants as Church members proves that they are
not in the full sense members of the Church. Baptism

5

66 Christian Baptism,

does not place them where, in the Apostolic Churches, it
placed believers.

This proof is confirmed by serious practical difficulties
which surround any attempt to reckon baptized infants
as Church members. Whose children are to be thus
reckoned ? We baptize without hesitation infant children
of any parents who are accustomed to join with us in
pubHc worship, even though not themselves members of
the Church. That we are right in doing so, I shall soon
endeavour to show. Would it not be incongruous to
give to infants, on the ground that they are children of
Christian parents, a position not occupied by their parents ?
Or does any one seriously propose that we cease to
baptize such children ?

Once more. If we reckon infants as members of the
Church, how long are we to retain those who in boyhood
show no definite signs of spiritual life ? All experience
tells us that such cases will arise. At what age shall we
cross out their names ? At ten years ? at fourteen ? at
eighteen ? By what process are they to be removed from
the register ? How serious the dilemma thus needlessly
forced upon the Church ! Hereditary Church-membership
is apt to become an eclipse of personal spiritual life.

These difficulties, which seem at first sight purely
ecclesiastical, reveal the wide difference between the
position of baptized infants and that of professed believers
in Christ. This difference forbids us to accept the former
as, in the full sense, members of the Church.

This by no means implies that infants are away from
Christ. He who of old took them in His arms still holds

Baptized Children.* 67

them in His embrace. From His embrace, armed with
His blessing, they go forth into the battle of Hfe. But
victory is only for those who confess Christ. The king-
dom of God and the Church are by no means conterminous.
The latter includes, not necessarily all those on whom God
smiles, but those only who have ranged themselves under
the banner of Christ.

Moreover, the children of Christian parents and of
Christian congregations and schools, although not yet
members of the Church, occupy already a very close
relation to it. They are an outer court separated from
the inner sanctuary only by the gate of personal con-
fession. Very soon they must either pass through that
gate or wander away into the world. To-day they are
within reach of our influence : in a few years it will be
displaced by the distracting influences of the world
around. The value and the shortness of this opportunity
lay upon the Christian pastor a heavy responsibility.
The outer court is as much a part of his charge as is the
Church itself. He is bound to use every effort to lead the
little ones, as early as possible, from the outer court into
the sanctuary of personal confession.

We notice, however, that Baptism is not the gate into
this outer court as was the Baptism of believers the gate
into the Apostohc Churches. For they were brought into
it, not by Baptism, but by the light of the Gospel which
shone around their cradle. Even unbaptized children in
our congregations are in this outer court as much as those
baptized. Surely no one will deny that all have an equal
claim en the pastor's care. His responsibility is limited

68 Christian Baptis77t,

only by his influence and opportunities. We are bound
to do all we can to save all within our reach, baptized or
unbaptized. By baptizing infants we do not place them
in the outer court, but recognise their birthright place in
it. Just so circumcision did not make a babe the child of
Abraham but recognised him as already such.

We saw in Section ii. that Infant Baptism lacks one
all-important element present in the Baptism of a believer,
viz., personal confession. We baptize infants in confident
hope that in due time this lack will be supplied. The
Church is therefore bound to provide for those baptized in
infancy a suitable opportunity of personal and formal
confession, and to keep before them the lack which only
they can supply. Unless it be supplied by their own
personal confession, their Baptism will remain for ever
incomplete; a monument of unfaithfulness to a high
vocation.

We can now give a partial answer to the question before
us. Certainly, baptized infants are not, in the full sense,
members of the Church. For the Church is the company of
the professed followers of Christ. On the other hand, the
children of Christian parents stand in a most intimate rela-
tion to the Church, in a position which gives them, equally
with its full members, a claim to the pastor's care. The
little ones occupy a court of their own. And, without
doubt, their court belongs to the Temple. The pastor is
bound to do all he can to make it to each of them a vesti-
bule to the inner court of personal confession. If we keep
all this in view it matters little whether the name Church
is given to the outer, or only to the inner court. But

Baptized Children. 69

in either case we must keep in mind the claims of the
little ones and their need of personal faith and con-
fession.

Ought there then to be lists of those baptized in infancy?
The baptismal register is already such a list. Possibly
a column might be left to receive in due time a record
that the baptized one has joined the Church. But the
many migrations of modern life would make the filling up
of such a column very uncertain ; and render baptismal
registers a very awkward basis for evangelical work
among the young.

A more practicable method lies ready to our hand. Let
every pastor look upon all children in his congregation
and schools as a special charge for which he is responsible
to Christ. For his own use, let him as far as possible
obtain lists of them. Let him devise, at frequent intervals,
special services for the young ; and make special effort to
bring to these services every child in his congregation, so
that none keep away except by their own refusal. At
such services, let him set forth plainly the solemn respon-
sibilities embodied in Christian Baptism ; and use every
persuasion to draw the young to Christ. And let there
be formed suitable classes which may be a pathway to
full communion with the Church. On these lines, which
are open to no question, we shall best discharge the solemn
obligation recognised in our Baptism of Infants.

Whose children ought we to baptize ? If Baptism
admitted infants into the Church, we should hesitate to
baptize children of parents not themselves members of it.
Such hesitation is needless. That an infant is brought

yo Christian Baptism.

for Baptism, proves that he is born under Christian in-
fluences, and under the privileges and responsibilities of
the New Covenant. We therefore erect over him the
monument of the Covenant. By bringing him, the parents
recognise their obligation to train him for Christ, and give
to the pastor a valuable opportunity of pressing upon them
the greatness of their responsibility. But we have no
right to claim that the little one be brought up in our own
communion. For Baptism is a rite, not of any one Church,
but of the Universal Church. At the same time, by bring-
ing him to us, the parents claim for their little one our
pastoral care. By receiving him we acknowledge the
obligation thus laid upon us to do all we can to lead him
to Christ and into His Church. And the best way of
doing this known to us is to gather him into our own
section of the Church. This therefore is our definite aim
and hope for all infants whom we baptize.

To sum up. Baptism is a divinely erected monument
of the New Covenant, and specifically of the truth that in
Christ God requires, and waits to impart, a purity other-
wise unattainable. In the case of heathens and Jews, the
monument can be erected only on those who personally
accept the Covenant. It is to them a mode of confession,
and, as commanded by Christ, a condition, in ordinary
circumstances, of salvation. But infants are under the
control of their parents. And parental influence places
the children of Christians in a very definite relation to the
New Covenant. From their parents they will hear the
Gospel : and by that Gospel they will be judged. This is

Baptized Chilaren, 71

to the children an infinite privilege, and to children and
parents involves solemn responsibility. Of this relation
and privilege and responsibility, the Baptism of Infants is
a formal recognition. The benefit of the rite is the pre-
sentation of the truths therein embodied. For these truths
are a channel through which the Spirit of God imparts
spiritual life. The actual gain is in proportion as the
truths are apprehended by the persons present. But we
have no hint that the rite alters in any way the infant's
relation to God or to the Covenant, or works in him any
immediate spiritual change. For the blessings connected
in the New Testament with the Baptism of believers cannot
be predicated of infants, who are incapable of faith, the
unique condition of all the blessings of the New Covenant.
We have seen that infants cannot be reckoned as members
of the Church in the same full sense as are those who have
entered it by personal confession ; but that children under
Christian influences form an outer court designed to be
the pathway to the inner sanctuary of personal confession,
and claiming in equal measure the care of the Christian
pastor. In other words, by their birth under Christian

INFLUENCES, THE CHILDREN OF CHRISTIAN PARENTS ARE
PLACED ON THE THRESHOLD OF THE ChURCH, IN A POSITION
WHICH COMPELS THEM EITHER TO CROSS THE THRESHOLD OR
TO TURN THEIR BACK UPON IT. Of THIS SOLEMN POSITION,

THE Baptism of Infants is a formal recognition.

APPENDIX.

REFERENCES TO BAPTISM IN EARLY CHRISIIAN
WRITERS.

In chap. xi. of the so-called Epistle of Barnabas, a document
quoted several times by Clement of Alexandria as written by the
companion of St. Paul, but written probably by an unknown writer
at the close of the first century, we read : " Let us inquire whether
the Lord took care to make a declaration beforehand about the
water and about the cross. About the water it is written touching
Israel how they will not receive the baptism which bears forgiveness
of sins but will build one up for themselves," quoting Jeremiah ii. 13.
" Then what says he ? * There was a river flowing on the right, and
beautiful trees were growing up from it, and whoever may eat of
them will live for ever.' This means that we go down into the
water full of sins and defilement, and we go up bearing fruit in our
heart, having in our spirit fear and hope towards Christ."

In the recently discovered Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,
a document of about the same age, in chap, vii., we read, "About
Baptism. Thus baptize. Having said beforehand all these things,
baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Spirit, in fresh water. But if thou hast not fresh water, baptize in
other water. And if thou canst not baptize in cold water, then do so
in warm. And if thou hast neither, {i.e., in sufficient quantity,) pour
water three times on the head, for the name of Father and Son
and Holy Spirit. Before the Baptism let the Baptizer and the
person receiving Baptism fast, and any others who can. But com-
mand the person receiving Baptism to fast one or two days."

Ignatius, writing at the beginning of the second century to the
Smyrnans, in chap. viii. says : " It is not lawful apart from the
bishop either to baptize or to hold a lovefeast."

In the Shepherd of Hermas, written probably at the middle of the
second century, we read in Vision iii. chap. 3 : " Hear then why the

Early Christian Writers, 'j'^

tower is built over waters ; because your life was saved and will be
saved by means of water. And the tower is founded upon the word
of the almighty and glorious Name and is held firm by the unseen
power of the Father,"

So in Co?n?na?idme7tt iv., chap. 3: "I heard, sir, from some
teachers that there is no other kind of repentance except that when
we went down into the water and received forgiveness of our
former sins. He says to me, Thou hast heard well : for it is so.
For he who has received forgiveness of sins must needs sin no more
but dwell in purity."

So in Similitude ix. chap. 16: "Why did the stones go up out of
the deep, and were put to the building of the tower, bearing these
spirits ? They must of necessity go up through water in order to be
made alive. For unless they laid aside the deadness of their life
they could not in any other way enter into the Kingdom of God.
Therefore also those who were as'eep received the seal of the Son
of God. For before a man bears the name of the Son of God he is
dead : but when he has received the seal he puts away his deadness
and receives life. The seal then is the water. They go down
therefore into the water dead, and go up living. Also to those
men therefore this seal was preached and they made use of it, in
order that they might enter into the Kingdom of God."

About the same time Justin writes in his First Apology, chap. Ixi. :
*' We will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves
to God when we had been made new through Christ, lest if we
passed by this we should seem to be somewhat unfair in our
exposition. So many as are persuaded and believe that the things
taught and said by us are true, and promise to be able to live
accordingly, are taught to pray and ask from God, with fasting,
forgiveness of their former sins, we praynig and fasting with them.
Then they are led by us where there is water and are born again in
the way of new birth by wliich also we ourselves were born again.
For in the name of God, the Father and Master of all things, and
of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then
receive the washing * in water. For Christ also said, ' Except ye
be born again ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.' . . .
And from this we have learnt from the Apostles this reason. Since
we received our first birth by necessity, without knowing it, by our

* Same word in Ephesians v. 26 ; Titus iii. 5.

74 ' Christian Baptis7n,

parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and
wicked training, in order that we may not remain children of necessity
or of ignorance but may become children of choice and knowledge,
and may obtain in the water forgiveness of sins formerly com-
mitted, there is pronounced over him who wishes to be born again
and has repented of his former sins in the name of God, the Father
and Master of all things ; they who lead to the laver * (or washing)
him that is to be washed, saying over him this name only. . . . And
this washing is called enlightenment, since they who learn these
things receive light in their understanding."

So in the Dialogue with Trypho, chap. xiv. : " What is the use of
that Baptism which cleanses the flesh and body only ? Baptize the
soul from anger and from covetousness, from envy, from hatred ; and,
lo, the body is clean."

So again in chap, xliii. : " And we who through Him have
approached God have received not fleshly but spiritual circumcision,
which Enoch and those like him observed. And we, when we had
become sinners, because of the mercy of God received it through
Baptism. And in like manner all may receive it."

There are similar references to Baptism in chaps, xliv., Ixxxvi.

Iren^us, who became Bishop of Lyons in Gaul in a.d. 178, writes
On Heresies^ bk. ii. 22. 4: " He came to save all men through Him-
self; all, I say, who through Him are born again for God, infants,
and children, and boys, and young men, and older men. Therefore
He came through every age, for infants having become an infant,
sanctifying infants : among children a child, sanctifying those of that
age, and at the same time becoming an example to them of piety and
righteousness and subjection."

Clement of Alexandria at the close of the second century
writes. Pedagogue^ bk. i. 6 : " Being baptized, we are enlightened ;
being enlightened, we are adopted as sons : being adopted, we attain
maturity ; attaining maturity, we become immortal." And below,
" So also we who receive baptism, having wiped away the sins
which like a mist obscure the light of the Divine Spirit, have the
eye of the spirit free and unhindered and full of light." Similar
references to Baptism follow. In chap. xii. he says : " To me it
seems that He Himself formed man out of dust, and begat him again
with water, and made him to grow by the Spirit, and trained him by

* Same word in Ephesians v. 26; Titus iii. 5.

Early Christian Writers. 75

the word for adoption and salvation, directing him by holy com-
mandments."

About the same time Tertullian at Carthage wrote a treatise
On BaptisDi, which begins : " Blessed Sacrament of our water, by
which, washed from the sins of our earlier darkness, we are set free
for eternal life. . . . We little fishes, like our FISH,* Jesus Christ,
are born in water ; nor are we safe in any other way but by remain-
ing in water. Therefore Ouintilla, the most monstrous one, (the
Cainite heresy,) knew well how to kill little fishes by taking them
away from the water." Tertullian assumes the necessity of Baptism
for salvation. He replies in chap, xiii, to an objection thus : " They
say that Baptism is not necessary for those to whom faith is suffi-
cient ; for even Abraham pleased God by a sacrament not of water
but of faith. But in all cases later things decide, and those subse-
quent prevail over those going before. Salvation was formerly by
naked faith, before the suffering and resurrection of the Lord. But
now that faith has been enlarged to belief in His birth, suffering, and
resurrection, an enlargement has been added to the sacrament, even
the sealing act of Baptism, the clothing in some sense of the faith
which before was naked and had no power without its own law. For
the law of baptizing has been imposed, and its form prescribed.
' Go,' says He, ' teach the nations, baptizing them in the Name of the
Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.' To this law is
joined that limitation, ' Except a man be born of water and Spirit,
he will not enter into the kingdom of heaven : ' and it has bound
faith to the necessity of Baptism. Therefore all who afterwards
believed were baptized. Then also Paul, when he believed, was
baptized." Also in chap, xviii. : " But they whose office it is to
baptize know that baptism is not to be entrusted rashly." After
urging caution, he adds: "Therefore, according to each one's
condition and disposition, and even age, a delay of Baptism is more
expedient, especially in the case of little children. For why is it
needful that even sponsors be thrust into danger, who both them-
selves through mortality may fail to fulfil their promises and be
deceived by development of a bad disposition ? The Lord indeed
says, 'Do not forbid them to come to Me.' Let them come therefore
while they are growing up, let them come while they are learning,

* The Greek word for fish contains the initial letters of Jesus
Christ Son of God. •

76 Christian Baptism.

while they are being taught where they may come. Let them
become Christians when they are able to know Christ. Why does
the innocent age of life hasten to the forgiveness of sins ? " After
urging delay even upon others, he adds : " If any one understands
the importance of Baptism, he will fear rather its reception than its
delay. Sound faith is secure of salvation." In chap. vi. of his treatise
on Repe?itance Tertullian says : " That laver (or washing) is a sealing
of faith ; which faith begins and is commended by a faith of repent-
ance. We are not washed in order that we may cease to sin, since
we have already been washed in heart." In the matter of Baptism
these two works of Tertullian are worthy of careful study. They
mark, even by their inconsistencies, a transition of opinion in the
earl}^ Church on this important subject.

Later quotations from Origen, Cyprian, and Augustine are given
on pages 28 and 42. They reveal the tendency of thought in the
third and following centuries.

The above are the chief quotations by Christian writers of the
first two centuries. They may be verified in Clark's Ante-Nicene
Library. But their real significance can be understood only by
careful study of other Christian Literature of the same age. The
importance given to Baptism as a condition and means of salvation
is explained in part by the expositions given in Section i., and in
part by the immense importance in those early days of the accession
and Baptism of new converts. A dangerous perversion of this
importance we see on page 42 in the quotations from Augustine.

Printed by Hazell, Watson, & Viney, Ld., London and Aylesbury.

OPINIONS OF THE PRESS

ON THE

AUTHOR'S COMMENTARIES ON

THE EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL

From The Spectator.

" A very full and elaborate Commentary, marked by all the diligence
and erudition which Mr. Beet, by his similar work on the Epistle to
the Romans, had before shown himself to possess. The writer is well
acquainted with the newest results of criticism, and deals with them in a
candid and judicious spirit. Some of his conclusions we cannot accept ;
but they are always well weighed and powerfully defended."

From The Clergyman's Magazine.

** We have spoken in cordial terms of the preceding volumes by the
author, and it is impossible not to reassert our high appreciation of his
valuable work. It will be a mine of wealth to either clergy or teachers
who have to prepare sermons or other work from this epistle. Had we
to make choice of one commentary only on the Galatians, we should be
quite content to be shut up with this. . . . Few men know the Pauline
theology better than the author, and everything he produces is of sterling
character and worth reading."

From The Westminster Review.

**Mr. Beet's Commentary, while thoroughly deserving the attention of
scholars, is also intended for the use of every intelligent reader of the
English Bible. The convenience of the latter is provided for by exact
literal translations, prefixed to each section of the Commentary, of the
verses therein commented on. The author's scholarship is guaranteed by
Professor Sanday. and the style of his exposition is clear and direct, and
free from the unnecessary verbiage which marks so many commentaries'
sacred and profane. His object is to use St. Paul's line of thought in the
Epistle as a means of arriving at his general conception of the Gospel and
of Christ. His standpoint is that of a liberal orthodoxy, and his work is

marked by wide reading and careful research. The dissertation on the
relation of the Jewish Sabbath to the Christian day of rest seems to us
to call for attention. We can cordially recommend Mr. Beet's work, not
only to experts, but to the religious world in general."

From The Dublin Review, Roman Catholic Quarterly.

" This learned work deserves special notice, for it combines two pecu-
liarities not often found together. It is a thoroughly English Commentary,
and yet one that speaks both fairly and kindly of the Catholic Church.
We are so accustomed to translations from the German that it is quite
refreshing to notice the work of a genuine English scholar, and to find that,
M'ithout being inferior in learning, it surpasses foreign works in clearness
and method. In fact, the Rev. Mr. Beet is to be congratulated on his
success as an expositor, understanding as he does exactly what a reader
wants in a Commentary — much knowledge and copious reading condensed
into small compass. The analysis of each chapter is most carefully done,
and the sequence of thought clearly shown. Another special feature of
Mr. Beet's method is the stress he lays on the Evidences of Christianity
and the undesigned coincidences which overthrow the objections of modem
scepticism. Mr. Beet's theological views on certain points are in contra-
diction to the teaching of the Catholic Church, and for that very reason
we appreciate the more his kindly tone and his scrupulous fairness. . . .
Nor does Mr. Beet allow any odium thtoIogiLum to hinder him from doing
justice to his opponent's case. When discussing the Catholic teaching of
the Real Presence, he is careful to use the Church's own language as
found in the Council of Trent. . . . We have then to thank the Rev. Mr.
Beet for his excellent Commentary, and to express the hope that he may
be able to accomplish his intention of explaining the other Epistles of the
Great Apostle."

F7'om The Literary Churchman.

"We have been much impressed by this admirable Commentary. . . .
We are greatly struck by the unwearied patience of the commentator, with
his very fair scholarship, and above all, with the profound and apparently
original vein of thought that pervades his work. No difficulty is ever slurred
over. The Essays on 'Justification by Faith' and ' Sabbath Days,' though
on such worn subjects, are full of freshness and feeling. Indeed, we have
never referred to any subject without some measure of interest and instruc-
tion."'

The " British Weekly " Extras.

Fcap. Stjo, is. ; clothe \s. 6d.

THE SECOND ADVENT:
Will it be before the Millennium ?

Affirmative, bv Negative^ by

Kev. Canon Faussett, D.D. Rev. Prof. Joseph Agar Beet.

Mr. and Mrs. H. G. Guinness. Rev. Prin. T. C. Edwards, D.D.

Rev. Prof. Godet, D.D. Rev. Principal Brown, D.D.

"We strongly urge Biblical students to possess this work." — Primitive Methodist.

Second Edition, completing Tenth Thousand. Fcap. Svo, is. ; c/oth, is. 6d.

BOOKS WHICH HAVE INFLUENCED ME.

By R. Louis Stevenson, John Ruskin, W. E. Gladstone, II. Rider
Haggard, W. T. Stead, W. Besant, P. G. Hamerton, Professor J. S.
Blackie, Ven. Archdeacon Farrar, Dr. W. C. Smith, Dr. Marcus
Dods, and Dr. Joseph Parker.

" Hardly any of the papers are lacking in some kind of personal or intellectual interest,
and some of them are full of stimulation and suggestion." — Maftchester Examiner.

Reprints from the British Weekly.
TEMPTED LONDON.— Young Men.

Crown Svo, c/oth, ^s. 6d.

A series of chapters on the temptations of young men in London,
dealing specially with intemperance, gambling, and impurity. These
facts were collected with great care by special commissioners of the
British Weekly, and are issued in volume form as a gift book for
young men.

THE RELIGIOUS CENSUS OF LONDON.

Crozon Svo, cloth, ^s. 6d.

A SON OF THE MORNING. By Sarah Doudney.

With Frontispiece. 3^. 6d.

" It is a work of high art, of high literary quality, full of high feeling, knowledge of
human nature, keen insight into human character." — School Board Chronicle.

WHEN A MAN'S SINGLE. By J. M. Barrie.

(Gavin Ogilvy.) Buckram, gilt top. Crown Svo. Price 6^.

" At once the most successful, the most truly literary, and the most realistic attempt
that has been made for years — if not for generations — to reproduce humble Scotch life." —
Spectator.

BY THE SAME AUTHOR.

AULD LIGHT IDYLLS. Bound in buckram, gilt top.
Crown Svo. Price 6x.

LOxNDON : HODDER & STOUGHTON, 27, Paternoster Row,

Every Friday, Price One Penny.

THE

BRITISH WEEKLY

% lountal 0f C^ristmti artir Social Iroguss.

PRINCIPAL FEATURES:—

Leading Article.

Tempted London. Notes of the Week.

A Serial Story.

The Correspondence of Claudius Clear.

Personal.

Rambling Remarks by a Man of Kent.

News of the Churches.

Pulpit Notes. British Table Talk.

Sketches by Gavin Ogilvy.

RECENT NOTICES OF THE PRESS.

" By far the ablest and most readable of all the religious weeklies." — Methodist
Recorder.

"The ablest of all the religious weeklies, and in many ways a pattern for the rest." —
Newcastle Leader,

" A stream of the best religious literature of every land flows into our editorial sanctum,
and thence, after being duly fihered, fills the columns of the Southern Cross. Religious
papers everywhere, with scarcely an exception, grow brighter and wider, more tolerant
and more vigorous ; but the brightest and widest, the most tolerant and most vigorous, of
all our exchanges is, perhaps, The British Weekly. The British Weekly is far
and away the most scholarly of popular religious papers, and it is also the most resolutely
evangelical." — Melbourne Southern Cross.

Post free for Six Months, 3J'. 3^/. ; Twelve Months., ds. 6d. From the
Publishers, 27, Pate^-noster Row, London,

The British Weekly Pulpit.

A COMPANION JOURNAL TO ''THE BRITISH WEEKLY^

Containing specially reported Sermons, Sermon Outlines,

Sermonettes for Children, Short Expositions,

etc., etc.

EVERY FRIDAY. PRICE ONE PENNY.

London : HODDER & STOUGHTON, 27, Paternoster Row.

Princeton Theological Seminary Libraries

1 1012 01184 9629

Date Due

S 2 ". ■4>

iv .

'7

iMHirr-*'

>UN t

n ^nnfi

WIT Q

JiJiNi ^

w ^UUU

U iiuUi

4

f