A CONCISE VIEW OF

CHRISTIAN

BAPTISM.

BY JOHN CRAPS.

"The nature of an ordinance appointed by the Lord, and since observed in every age and in every country by nearly all his followers, must be in itself a subject deserving our regard."-Congregational Magazine, 1841, p. 19.

CHRISTIAN BAPTISM is a gospel ordinance, and all questions respecting it must be determined by the New Testament. The writings of the fathers, the traditions of men, and the customs of the church, are no authority on the subject.

CHAPTER I.

The PERSONS to be baptized are not INFANTS, but BELIEVERS only.

"It cannot be proved by the sacred Scriptures, that infant baptism was instituted by Christ."-Luther.

First: Consider the nature and design of baptism.

1. Baptism is a profession of discipleship to Christ-a putting on of Christ. Gal. iii. 27. But infants cannot "put on Christ"-they cannot profess faith in Christ.

2. Baptism is to be administered "in" or into "the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Matt. xxviii. 27. That is, says Dr. Guyse,"by the authority and into the faith, profession, and worship of the eternal Father, Son and Spirit."-But infants cannot worship, profess, believe, or submit to the authority of the Father, Son and Spirit.

3. Baptism is a burial and a resurrection with Christ through faith. Col. ii. 12. But infants can neither be buried nor rise with Christ through faith.

4. Baptism is a fulfilling of righteousness. Matt. iii. 15. But infants can neither fulfil righteousness nor commit sin. They can neither obey nor disobey God.

5. Baptism is "the answer of a good conscience." 1 Peter iii. 21. But infants can have neither a good nor a bad conscience.

6. Baptism requires, implies, and is a sign of, a death unto sin and a new birth unto righteousness. Rom. vi. 3-12. But infants can neither die unto sin nor live unto righteousness.

This is christian baptism. It must therefore be improper to baptize infants, for they can neither be what baptism implies, nor do what it requires.

Secondly: Consider the law of baptism, as given in the gospel commission. "Go-teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Matt. xxviii. 27. "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Mark xvi. 15, 16. This law enjoins the baptism of believers, and of believers only. There is no place bere for infant baptism. The Saviour himself "limits the baptism to the individuals who should believe, just as he limits the salvation.--The preaching is to all for the purpose of making disciples :'-these disciples were to consist of the Individuals of all nations, who should believe: -and to them-that is to such as made a credible profession of faith-the BAPTISM WAS TO BE RESTRICTED."— Dr. Wardlaw. THIS IS THE LAW OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. And the Saviour himself in this law has "limited" and "restricted" baptism to believers. To baptize infants is to transgress this great law of the Son of God.

Tenth Edition, Making 70,000, Price One Penny, or 7s. per hund. HOULSTON AND STONEMAN, 65, PATERNOSTER Row, LONDON.

Thirdly: Consider all the scriptural examples of baptism.

1. John "preached in the wilderness of Judea," and baptized such as "confessed their sins." Matt. iii. 1-6. Mark i. 5. He "baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, That they should believe on him which should come after him, that is on Christ." Acts xix. 4. As John required those whom he baptized to confess their sins, and believe in the coming Messiah, it is evident infants could not be the subjects of his baptism.

2. Our adorable Lord and Saviour was baptized, not in infancy, but when he "began to be about thirty years of age." Luke iii. 23.

3. Jesus baptized by his disciples in the land of Judea. And he "made and baptized more disciples than John." John iv. 1. He made disciples, then baptized them. We do not read of his baptizing any but disciples, and these could not be infants, for he says "Whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple." Luke xiv. 27.

4. When those who "were pricked in their hearts," enquired, "What shall we do? Peter said unto them, Repent and be baptized every one of you." And "they that gladly received his word were baptized." Acts ii. 37-41. Here Peter made disciples by preaching the gospel, and such disciples were baptized. On this occasion "about three thousand" were baptized. But there is not the least intimation that one of these was an infant.

5. Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them." And "when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized both men and women." Acts viii. 5-12. The narrative says nothing about infants. Had Philip baptized infants, no doubt they as well as men and women would have been mentioned.

6. The Eunuch enquired, "What doth hinder me to be baptized?" Philip replied, "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest." He said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." Then he was baptized. Acts viii. 36-38. The language plainly implies that Philip would not have baptized the Eunuch had he not been a believer.

7. At Cesarea "the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we ? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." Acts x. 44-48. These were not infants, but believers.

8. Lydia attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul, and "she was baptized and her household.' Acts xvi. 14, 15. This is no evidence for infant baptism, for the following reasons. 1. There is no evidence that Lydia had any children. 2. There is no evidence that she was even married, 3. An household does not necessarily require or imply an infant-there are as many households without as with infants. 4. There were believing households in the days of the Apostles. John iv. 53. Acts xviii. 8. 5. There are believing households in most christian churches in the present day. 6. Those who baptize none but believers, sometimes baptize whole households. The baptized household of Lydia is therefore no proof of infant baptism.

9. Paul and Silas spake unto the jailor "the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he was baptized, he and all his straightway." And he " rejoiced, believing in God with all his house." Acts xvi. 31-34. The apostles would not "speak the word of the Lord" to infants. Nor could it be said of infunts that they "rejoiced, believing in God." But this is said of the jailor and of all his house.

10, "Crispus believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians bearing, believed, and were baptized." Acts xviii. 8. All the house of Crispus "believed on the Lord," therefore, none of them could be infants. The "many Corinthians" heard, "believed," and then "were baptized."

11. Paul" baptized the household of Stephanas." 1 Cor. i. 14-16. "Ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the first-fruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints." 1 Cor. xvi. 15. These ministers to the saints could not be infants.

12. So many of the Romans as were baptized into Jesus Christ were capable of knowing that they were baptized into his death. Rom. vi. 3. There were therefore no baptized infants among them.

13. As many of the Galatians as were baptized, were by profession "the children of God by faith in Jesus Christ." Gal. iii. 26, 27. There were therefore no baptized infants at Galatia.

In all these examples of baptism we do not find one infant. Dr. Wall justly remarks, "Among all the persons that are recorded as baptized by the apostles, there is no express mention of an infant." The baptism of believers is frequently stated, but the baptism of infants is never mentioned in the Scriptures. This would be strange indeed if it were the will of God that infants should be baptized. Fourthly: Consider that the Scriptures contain no direction for infant baptism. The Scriptures never command infant baptism nor even allude to it as a duty. If infant baptism were a duty would not Christ have enjoined it on his apostleswould not the apostles have enforced it in their sermons and epistles? But neither Christ nor his apostles ever allude to it. The duties of parents are enforced in the epistles, but the baptism of infants is never mentioned as one of

these duties. If infant baptism were a duty, it would be a very prominent and important one, and it is not probable that it would be omitted in the epistles to the churches. As it is never alluded to in those epistles the inference is, that it is not a duty to baptize infants.

Fifthly: Consider the case of the infants brought to Jesus. Matt. xix. 13-15. 1. These little children were not brought to Christ to be baptized, but " that he should put his hands on them and pray-that he should touch them." 2. Jesus did not baptize them, "but took them up in his arms, put his hands on them, and blessed them-laid his hands on them and departed thence." 3. The Saviour did not give any instruction respecting the baptism of these infants, nor was there on the occasion the slightest allusion to baptism. Had it been the Redeemer's will that infants should be baptized this was a favourable opportunity for him to have given some intimation of it, especially as he took occasion to describe the subjects of his kingdom. But though infants were in his arms, and he was discoursing with his disciples respecting the subjects of his kingdom, yet he said not a word about infant baptism. Is not this expressive silence? Let the impartial reader judge whether this silence do not significantly intimate that it is not the will of Christ that infants should be baptized.

Sixthly: Consider what the Scriptures require of persons to be baptized. The Scriptures require repentance and faith of persons to be baptized. See Matt. iii. 1-12. Mark xvi. 16. Acts ii. 38. Acts viii. 37. Acts xiii. 24. Even the "Church Catechism" teaches that repentance and faith are requisite to baptism. The Catechism asks "What is required of persons to be baptized?" Reader! Mark the answer to this question-"Repentance, whereby they forsake sin; and faith, whereby they sted fastly believe the promises of God made to them in that sacrament." Yes, these are required of persons to be baptized. But infants can neither repent nor believe. The Scriptures have not given us authority in any case to dispense with these requirements, therefore it must be unscriptural to baptize infants.

Seventhly Consider that the baptism of infants is a useless ceremony.

It has never been, and it never can be proved that infant baptism answers any valuable purpose, either to the infant, the church of Christ, or the world. The unconscious infant cannot be profited by the ceremony. Baptized infants are neither wiser, nor holier, nor happier than unbaptized infants-when they grow up they have no more knowledge of the truth, no more faith in the gospel, no more obedience to God, no more love to the saints. Those baptized in infancy, are as far from the kingdom of God when they grow up, as those who are not baptized in infancy. Most of our atheists, infidels, socialists, and immoralists were baptized in infancy. Infant baptism is a useless and therefore an unscriptural ceremony.

-

Eighthly: Consider that infant baptism is inconsistent with voluntary religion. The religion of the gospel is essentially voluntary-the belief of it the profession of it the practice of it-the support of it and the extension of it-all must be a willing service, or it cannot be acceptable to God. The people of God are a willing people-his service is their choice, and his law is their delight. None are christians but such as gladly receive the gospel of Christ. Infant baptism is not voluntary but compulsory baptism, and is altogether unlike the gospel. The infant is not baptized by choice but by constraint, and is made a christian by force. A compulsory christian! What a contradiction! A consistent voluntary cannot approve of infant baptism.

Ninthly: Consider that infant baptism is not consistent with spiritual and personal religion.

The religion of the gospel is spiritual and personal; those are the subjects of it who are born of the Spirit and walk in newness of life. But infant baptism is not practised on the ground of spiritual but of carnal birth-not on the ground of personal but of relative piety, or in most cases on the ground of mere proxy profession. How can this be consistent with gospel religion?

If the Scriptures contain no precept for, and no example of infant baptism-if they say not one word about infants in connexion with baptism-if baptism is that of which infants are incapable-and if baptism is not consistent with the personal, voluntary, and spiritual religion of the gospel- then every unbiassed mind must conclude that baptism ought not to be administered to infants. And consequently, those who have been baptized in infancy only, have not been in the sense of scripture, baptized at all. The rite administered in their infancy being altogether different from that which the word of God enjoins, they are yet unbaptized, and ought so to consider themselves.

CHAPTER II.

Baptism is IMMERSION.

"Paul says, We are buried with him by baptism into death; that is, the ceremony of wholly immersing us in water, when we were baptized, siguitied, that we die to sin; and that of raising us again from our immersion, signified, that we would no more return to those disorderly practices in which we lived before our conversion to christianity."-Saurin.

That baptism is immersion may be determined by the following considerations. 1. The WORD baptism means immersion.

This is admitted by the following writers, although they were not baptists. CALVIN says, " The word baptize, signifies to immerse."

BEZA says,

"Christ commanded us to be baptized, by which word it is certain immersion is signified."

LUTHER says, "I would have those that are to be baptized, to be wholly dipped into the water, as the word imports and the mystery does signify."

Dr. CAMPBELL says, "The word baptizein, both in sacred writers and in classical, signifies to dip, to plunge, to immerse."

SCOTT says, “Immersion is DOUBTLESS baptism." Life by J. Scott.

Dr. CHALMERS says, "The original meaning of the word baptism, is

immersion."

Nothing but the force of truth could have induced these writers to give this testimony in favor of immersion.

2. The words "sprinkle" and "pour" frequently occur in the Scriptures, but there is not one instance in which the original of them is either bapto or baptizo. The word "dip" or "dipt" occurs six times in the new testament, and in every instance the original word is bapto or embapto. This plainly shows that, in the opinion of the translators, bapto, from which the word "baptize" is derived, means to "dip" or to "immerse."

3. The word "immersion" will, in every case, supply the place of the word "baptism" so as to make good sense; but the word "sprinkling" will not, neither will the word "pouring." This the reader may easily prove, by examining all the passages in which the word "baptism" occurs. Is not this a plain evidence that baptism is immersion and not sprinkling or pouring?

4. The words which in the original language of the Scriptures properly mean "sprinkling" and "pouring," are never used by the sacred writers to describe baptism. If baptism were either sprinkling or pouring, would not the term which properly expresses such act have been sometimes used by the sacred writers to describe the ordinance? If the term which properly means immersion is the only one used in the Scriptures to denote the ordinance, must not the ordinance be immersion? Would the Holy Ghost have invariably used a word which means immersion, if He had intended the ordinance to be administered by sprinkling or pouring?

5. John baptized "in the river of Jordan." Mark i. 5. And Jesus " was baptized of John in Jordan." Mark i. 9. If John immersed our Lord and

others, this account of his administering the rite "in the river Jordan" is plain and natural. Is it reasonable to suppose a prudent man would go into a river merely to sprinkle another? Can an instance be produced from history of people going into a river for the purpose of being sprinkled? Do those who sprinkle in the present day ever go into a river for that purpose?

6. Jesus went up straightway out of the water." Matt. iii. 16. A proof that he was baptized in the water, and an evidence that baptism is immersion.

7. "John was baptizing in Enon--because there was much water there." John iii. 23. "Because there was a great quantity of water there."-Doddridge. Is this reason satisfactory if he sprinkled the people? Would that have required much water? Would not a single spring, or a small rivulet have been sufficient? If John immersed the people the reason is a good one.

8. Philip and the eunuch "came to a certain water; and they went down both into the water; both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip." Acts viii. 36-39. They 66 came to" this water, and then "went down into it," and when "he baptized him" they "came up out of the water." This is exactly what immersion would require, but what would have been unnecessary for sprinkling or pouring. The sacred historian could not have described the immersion of the eunuch in more clear and forcible language.

9. Our Lord calls his sufferings a baptism; "I have a baptism to be baptized with." Luke xii 50. Jesus here refers to those deep waters of divine justice into which he was soon to sink for man's redemption. In reference to which he might truly say; "I am come into deep waters, where the floods overflow me." "All thy waves and thy billows are gone over me." If baptism is immersion there is an obvious propriety in calling these sufferings a baptism, because there is a striking resemblance.

10. The Israelites "were baptized unto Moses, in the cloud and in the sea." 1 Cor. x. 1, 2. Dr. Whitby says; "Both the cloud and the sea had some resemblance to our being covered with water in baptism; their going into the sea resembled the ancient rite of going into the water, and their coming out of it, their rising up out of the water."

Moses was a type of Christ, as a prophet and a lawgiver. Acts iii. 22, 23. As the people on this occasion surrendered themselves to the guidance of Moses, so a believer, in baptism yields himself to the direction of Christ to be conducted in the way of holiness to the heavenly Canaan.

11. Believers were "buried with Christ in baptism." That the apostle here alludes to immersion is generally admitted. Mr. Wesley is constrained to allow that this is an allusion "to the ancient manner of baptizing by immersion." In Rom. vi. 4, and Col. ii. 12, the apostle speaks of baptism as an emblem of a burial and of a resurrection, there must therefore be in baptism something that corresponds to these. Neither sprinkling nor pouring in any way resembles either a burial or a resurrection; but an immersion in the water, and a rising out of it strikingly resemble both. This must be obvious to every unprejudiced mind. 12. If, as Mr. Scott says, "immersion is doubtless baptism"-if the term "immersion" will in every case translate the term "baptism," and the words sprinkling" and "pouring" will not-if the terms properly meaning "sprinkling" and "pouring" are not once used in the Scriptures to denote the ordinance-if baptism was administered "in the river Jordan" and where there was "much water"-if the baptizer and the baptized "went down both into the water"--if baptism resembles the sufferings of Christ-if it resembles the state of the Israelites "in the cloud and in the sea"-and if it resembles a death, burial, and resurrection-then let the unbiassed reader judge whether baptism must not be immersion, and whether it is not an error to consider either sprinkling, or pouring to be baptism. And if he thus judge, must he not conclude that those who have been sprinkled only, have not been baptized: and that to practise sprinkling instead of immersion, is to set aside the law of God?

A 3