their infant-seed, may devote them to God in baptism, provided they can
do it by faith; and therefore a profession of faith, is only necessary
in those who are active, in this ordinance, not in them that are merely
passive. This we are obliged to maintain against those who often
intimate that children are not to be baptized, because they are not
capable of believing: Or when it is replied hereunto, that they are
capable of having the seeds of faith, though not the acts thereof; this
is generally reckoned insufficient to support our argument, by those who
are on the other side of the question; inasmuch as it cannot well be
determined, what infants have the seeds of faith, and what not; and, I
think those arguments which are generally brought to prove that the
infants of believing parents, as such, have the seeds of faith, on the
account whereof they are to be baptized can hardly be defended; because
many good men have wicked children.
Therefore what we insist on in this argument, is, that believing parents
may give up their children to God in baptism, in hope of their obtaining
the blessings of the covenant,[73] whether they are able to conclude
that they have the seeds of grace or no; they may devote them to God in
hope of regeneration; though they cannot know them to be regenerate, as
all ordinances are to be performed with this view, that they may be
rendered effectual means of grace. And from hence it may be inferred, as
is observed in this answer, that infants descending from parents, either
both, or but one of them, professing faith in Christ, are to be
baptized; since one parent has as much a right to the child as the
other: Therefore, the unbelief of one does not exclude the other from
giving it up to God by faith, in hope of its obtaining the saving
blessings of the covenant of grace. 1 Cor. vii. 14.
2. The right of the infant-seed of believers to baptism, may be farther
proved, from their being capable of the privileges signified therein;
and under an indispensable obligation to perform the duties which they,
who dedicate them to God, make a public profession of, as agreeable to
the design of this ordinance. None are to be excluded from any of those
ordinances, which Christ has given to the church, but they who are
either in a natural or a moral sense, to be deemed incapable subjects
thereof. Some, indeed, are incapable of engaging in ordinances, by
reason of a natural unmeetness for them, as infants are not to be
admitted to the Lord’s supper, as being under a natural incapacity; and,
ignorant and profane persons are not to be admitted to it, as being
under a moral incapacity; and, for the same reason, a wicked man, when
adult, is not a proper subject of baptism: But if there be neither of
these bars to exclude persons, they are not to be denied the advantage
of any ordinance. This, I think will be allowed by all; and therefore,
the only thing I need prove is, that infants are not incapable of the
principal things signified in baptism. That they are not incapable of
being dedicated to God, has been proved under the last head; and now we
shall consider several privileges that are signified therein, which they
are equally capable of; as,
(1.) Baptism is an external sign of that faith and hope which he has,
that dedicates a person to God, that the person dedicated, shall obtain
the saving blessings of the covenant of grace; Now, that infants are
capable of these blessings, none will deny, who suppose them capable of
salvation. If we suppose infants not to have regenerating grace, which
is neither to be affirmed or denied, it being a matter, at present,
unknown to us; yet they are capable of having it, for the reason but now
assigned; and though they cannot at present, put forth any acts of
grace, they will be capable thereof, as soon as they are able to discern
between good and evil.
They are not excluded by their infant-state, from being under Christ’s
special care; which is, doubtless, to be extended to elect infants as
well as others; and they are capable of being discharged from the guilt
of original sin, though not of laying claim to this privilege, which
they may be enabled to do afterwards. Now, if infants are capable of
these privileges, certainly the person who dedicates them to God, (who
has a right to do it, inasmuch as they are his property, and he is able
to do it by faith) may devote them to him, with the exercise of this
grace, and a fiducial expectation that they shall obtain these
privileges: And, indeed, when we engage in this ordinance, we ought to
expect some saving blessings, as the consequence hereof, as much as when
we engage in any other ordinance of divine appointment.
_Object._ It is objected to this, that though a person may devote his
child to God in hope of his obtaining saving blessings; yet he cannot
exercise any act of faith, that he shall obtain them: Therefore though
he may perform this duty with a degree of hope, or, at least, with a
desire hereof; yet he cannot do it by faith: Therefore, if children are
to be devoted to God by faith, they are not the subjects of this
ordinance.
_Answ._ To this it may be replied, that some things may be said to be
done by faith, when we have not a certain ground to expect the saving
fruits and effects thereof. Suppose an infant was expiring and the
tender parent concerned about its salvation, whether he has a certain
expectation that it shall be saved or no; yet he may, and ought to be
earnest with God by faith and prayer, that the child may be happy when
taken out of the world; and, if he finds that he has the lively exercise
of faith, with respect to this matter, this will afford him some degree
of hope, that God, who excited this grace in him, will own it by giving
the blessings which he desires; which is the only comfort that a parent
can take in the loss of his infant-seed: And, may there not be this act
of faith, when he dedicates him to God in baptism? Did we assert that
giving up our children to God by faith, necessarily infers their
obtaining saving blessings, the objection would have some force in it;
or if there could be no faith exercised, without our being certainly
persuaded that this should have a saving effect; then it might be
argued, that because we are not certain that infants shall be saved,
therefore we cannot give them up to God by faith: But if there may be
faith, where there is not this certain persuasion, or any ground by
which this matter may be determined, then, I think, it will follow, that
infants may be devoted to God by faith, as well as with a desire of
their obtaining saving blessings, and, consequently, this objection does
not take away the force of our argument. We are far from supposing that
baptismal dedication necessarily infers these saving blessings, or is
inseparably connected with them, so that the one cannot be without the
other. Therefore, it is sufficient to our purpose, to suppose that they
are capable of those blessings which faith desires, and, it may be,
hopes for; and, consequently, of those things which are principally
signified in baptism.
(2.) Infants are under an indispensable obligation to perform the duties
which are incumbent on those who are given up to God in baptism, and
signified thereby. This respects some things future, (they being, at
present, incapable of performing any duty) and, indeed, obligations to
perform duties may respect the time to come, as well as the time
present; as when a person is bound to pay a just debt, this obligation
is valid though it is not expected that it should be immediately paid.
Thus infants are professedly bound, when given up to God, to be the
Lord’s: Whether ever they will give up themselves to him by faith, or
no, is unknown to us, nevertheless, the obligation will take place as
soon as they are capable of doing good or evil. Therefore it follows,
that the parent may bind his child to be the Lord’s, inasmuch as the
obligation is just, as being founded in God’s right to obedience, and
when he has laid his child under it in this ordinance, he ought
afterwards strictly to charge him to stand to it, as he would not
contract double guilt; not only in neglecting to perform an
indispensable duty, but to pay that debt of obedience which has been so
solemnly acknowledged in this ordinance. These arguments taken from the
nature and design of the ordinance of baptism, give me the fullest
conviction concerning our warrant to apply it to infants: But there is
one more which is not wholly to be passed over, _viz._
(3). It appears, that the infant-seed of believers, are to be
consecrated or devoted to God in baptism, because they are included in
the covenant wherein God has promised that he will be a God to his
people, and to their seed; who are, upon this account, styled _holy_
Ezra. ix. 2. And it is said concerning Israel, that _they are the seed
of the blessed of the Lord, and their off-spring with them_, Isa. lxv.
23. the _branch_ is said to be _holy_, together with _the root_, Rom.
xi. 16. and _the children of the promise are counted for the seed_,
chap. ix. 8. that is included in that covenant in which God promised
that he would be a God to children, together with their parents, as he
says to Abraham; _I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and
to thy seed after thee, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after
thee_, Gen. xvii. 7. And, in this sense, I think, we are to understand
the apostle’s words, in 1 Cor. vii. 14.[74] _The unbelieving husband is
sanctified by the believing wife, and the unbelieving wife by the
believing husband; else were your children unclean, but now are they
holy._ By these, and other expressions of the like-nature, we are not to
understand the special saving grace of regeneration and sanctification;
for that is not a privilege that descends from parents to children by
birth, as our Saviour says, _We are born not of blood, nor of the will
of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God_, John i. 13.
Therefore, when some, who are on the other side of the question, think
that we intend hereby the saving blessings of the covenant, or that
holiness which is an internal qualification or meetness for heaven, they
do not rightly understand our meaning. Some, indeed, may have given
occasion to conclude that they intend this, who speak of the grace of
regeneration as conferred in baptism; and assert, that it intitles
persons to salvation, if they happen to die before they are adult:
Whereas, if afterward they appear to be in an unconverted state, by the
wickedness of their conversation, they are said to fall from that grace.
This is what I do not well understand; nor do I intend, when I speak of
the infants of believers as an holy seed, that they are all internally
regenerate or sanctified from the womb; but they are included in the
external dispensation of the covenant of grace; which must be reckoned a
greater advantage than if they had descended from Indians, who are
strangers to it.
I am sensible, indeed, that they who deny infant-baptism, suppose that
the holiness of the children spoken of by the apostle in the scripture
but now referred to, who descended from parents, of whom one only was a
believer, implies nothing else but their being legitimate: But that does
not seem to be his meaning; inasmuch as marriage is an ordinance of the
law of nature, which all, without distinction, have a right to, heathens
as much as Christians; and the children of the one, are as legitimate as
those of the other. Therefore, there is something else intended by their
being holy, namely, the same thing that is meant in those other
scriptures that we but now referred to, as taken for an external
relative holiness, whereby God must be supposed to have a greater regard
to them than to others who are styled unclean; and, if this does not
infer, as was before observed, their being internally regenerate or
sanctified: yet it is not a word without an idea affixed to it:
Therefore we must understand thereby, an holiness in the lowest sense of
the word; as children, are said to be _an heritage of the Lord, and the
fruit of the womb his reward_, Psal. cxxxvii. 7. or, it denotes the
obligation they are laid under, by the privilege of their descending
from believing parents, to adhere to their fathers’ God; which
obligation is professed or acknowledged, when they are dedicated to him
in baptism, as has been before observed; and this is the use which I
would make of this account which we have of them in scripture, to prove
their right to be devoted to God in this ordinance.
And, I think, we do not assert this without some warrant from scripture;
for when God told Abraham, in the promise but now mentioned, that he
would be _a God unto him, and to his seed_, which is the foundation of
their federal holiness; this is assigned as a reason why they should be
devoted to God in circumcision, Gen. xvii. 10. for we cannot but
conclude circumcision, as we do baptism, to have been an ordinance of
dedication or separation to God: And, in Acts ii. 39. when the apostle
had been pressing those Jews, amongst the mixed multitude, to whom he
had preached, to _repent and be baptized_; and encouraged them to hope
for the _gift of the Holy Ghost_; he assigns this as a reason, namely,
that _the promise was to them and to their children_, which refers to
the promise of the covenant made with Abraham, and his seed; and it
immediately follows, _and to them that are afar off_, that is, the
Gentiles, who might claim this promise, when they believed, whom the
apostle calls elsewhere, _children of the promise, as Isaac was_, Gal.
iv. 28. These who are styled, before conversion, a people _afar off_,
were after it reckoned the spiritual seed of Abraham, and so had a right
to the blessings of the covenant, that God would be a God to them; and,
by a parity of reason, in the same sense in which the seed of Abraham
were children of the promise, the seed of all other believers are to be
reckoned so, till by their own act and deed, they renounce this external
covenant relation: Now, from hence it may be inferred, that if they
stand in this relation, to God, this is publicly to be owned; and
accordingly they are to be given up to him in baptism, as there is
therein a professed declaration thereof.
As to what was but now inferred from the infant-seed of believers under
the Old Testament having a right to circumcision, because they were
included in the covenant which God made with their fathers, that
therefore they have a right to baptism; this is not to be wholly passed
over; though, I am sensible, they who deny infant-baptism, will not
allow of the consequence. Some have argued, in opposition to it, that
circumcision was ordained to be a sign and seal of that covenant of
peculiarity, which God made with the Jewish church, or of those
blessings which they were made partakers of, as a nation excelling
others, in name, honour, and glory: But this, I think, comes far short
of what the apostle says on that subject, _viz_. that it was _a seal of
the righteousness of faith_, Rom. iv. 11. And, indeed, when we call that
dispensation a covenant of peculiarity, we intend nothing else thereby,
but some external privileges annexed to the saving blessings of the
covenant of grace; and therefore, Abraham’s faith was conversant on both
of them; the righteousness of faith, which respected his own salvation,
and that of his spiritual seed; and those privileges of a lower nature,
which they who were, in other respects, his seed, were made partakers
of, by virtue of the covenant, in which God promised that he would be a
God to him, and to his seed. Moreover, it is generally denied, by those
who are on the other side of the question, that baptism comes in the
room of circumcision. This therefore remains to be proved, in order to
our establishing the consequence, that since children were to be devoted
unto God by circumcision under the law, they are to be devoted unto him
by baptism, under the gospel-dispensation.
Now, that this may appear, let it be considered, that God has
substituted some ordinances, under the gospel-dispensation, in the room
of others, which were formerly observed under the ceremonial law. Thus
the Lord’s supper is instituted in the room of the passover; otherwise
the apostle would never have alluded to one when he speaks of the other,
and says, _Christ, our passover, is sacrificed for us; therefore let us
keep the feast_, &c. 1 Cor. v. 7, 8. And we have as much ground to
conclude, that baptism comes in the room of circumcision, as we have
that any gospel-ordinance comes in the room of another, that belonged to
the ceremonial law, from what the apostle says, _in whom ye are
circumcised by the circumcision made without hands, buried with him in
baptism_, Col. ii. 11, 12. where he speaks of the thing signified by
circumcision and baptism, as being the same, namely, our communion with
Christ in his death; so that the thing signified by baptism, is styled,
as it were, a spiritual circumcision: Therefore, since these two
ordinances, signify the same thing for substance, and are set one
against the other in this scripture, we may, I think, infer from thence,
that baptism comes in the room of circumcision.
And, it is farther argued, that baptism being the only initiating
ordinance, at present, as circumcision was of old; so that the first
visible profession that was made, especially by any significant
ordinance, that they were the Lord’s, was made therein, which is what we
understand by an initiating ordinance under the gospel, as circumcision
was under the law, then it follows, that it comes in the room thereof;
or else no other ordinance does: But if it be said, that no ordinance
comes in the room of circumcision, then the privileges of the church
under this present dispensation, would be, in a very disadvantageous
circumstance, less than they were under the former; and if infants
received any advantage by being devoted to God by circumcision of old,
but are not to be devoted to him by baptism now, their condition is much
worse than that of those who were the children of such as lived under
the legal dispensation; whereas, on the other hand, God has not, under
this present dispensation, abridged the church of its privileges, but
rather increased them.
_Obj._ 1. It is objected, that infants have no right to baptism, because
they cannot believe and repent, since these graces are often mentioned
in scripture, as a necessary qualification of those who have a right to
this ordinance, as might be sufficiently proved from those scriptures in
which persons are said first to believe and repent, and then to be
baptized; and, in order thereunto, _the gospel_ was first to be
_preached_, according to our Saviour’s direction, Mark xvi. 15, 16. And
we read of persons _gladly receiving_ it, and _then_ being _baptized_,
Acts. ii. 41. therefore Philip would not baptize the Eunuch till he
professed his faith in Christ, chap. viii. 37, 38. Moreover, this is
called an ordinance of repentance, as none have a right to it, but those
who repent: Thus it is said, _John preached the baptism of repentance
for the remission of sins_, Mark i. 4. and elsewhere, that he _baptized
with the baptism of repentance, saying to the people, that they should
believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus_,
Acts. xix. 4.
_Answ._ We do not deny the necessity of faith and repentance to baptism,
in them who are adult, as appears by those concessions which have been
made under a foregoing head; in which we considered, that none are to be
baptized if adult, till they profess faith in Christ and obedience to
him; and this ought to be accompanied with repentance, otherwise it is
not true and genuine; therefore we freely owned also, that the gospel
was to be preached by the apostles, to those who were immediately
concerned in their ministry, before they were either to be baptized
themselves, or their infant-seed. Nevertheless this does not overthrow
the doctrine of infant-baptism, since that, as has been before proved,
depends upon different qualifications. Faith is, no doubt, necessary in
the person that dedicates, or devotes to God: But, if what has been said
concerning the obligation which every one that is able to dedicate his
child to God by faith, is under, to do it, (as much as he that is able
to dedicate himself to him by faith, when adult, is bound to do it,) be
true; then we are to have regard only to the faith of him that
dedicates, and to hope for the saving privileges of faith and
repentance, and all other graces, as divine blessings to be bestowed on
the person devoted to God, as the great end which we have in view in
this solemn action.[75]
_Obj._ 2. There is another objection which is concluded, by some, to be
unanswerable, _viz._ that there is neither precept, nor example in the
New Testament, that gives the least countenance to our baptizing
infants; therefore it cannot be reckoned a scripture doctrine, and
consequently is not from heaven, but of men.[76]
_Answ._ To this it may be replied, that consequences justly deduced from
scripture, are equally binding with the words or examples contained
therein. If this be not allowed of, we shall hardly be able to prove
many doctrines which we reckon not only to be true, but of great
importance. It would be endless to enter into a detail of particulars,
to illustrate and confirm this matter; and I cannot but think it
unnecessary, since they who deny infant-baptism, do not deny the
validity of just scripture-consequences.[77]
Therefore, all that I need say to this is, that if the method we have
taken to prove infant-baptism, appears to be just; and if the premises
be true, the conclusion deduced from them, must be allowed of; namely,
that the infants of believing parents are to be baptized, though this be
not contained in so many express words in scripture: And, I cannot but
think that the objection would equally hold good against Christ’s dying
for infants, as well as others, or of their being capable of
justification, regeneration, and the saving blessings of the covenant of
grace; and it might as well be inferred from hence, that they are not to
be devoted to God in other instances, besides that of baptism; or that
we have not the least ground to expect their salvation; for it would be
as hard a matter to find this contained in express words of scripture,
as that which is the matter in controversy, to wit, that they are to be
baptized.