for him to have been supplied with water in the wilderness of Judea, to
baptize by sprinkling or pouring, by his having it brought to him in
vessels for that purpose: It may be replied, that if he had only poured
water on the head or face, there is no need to suppose that he was so
sparing of it, as not to use above a spoonful, especially when it was so
easy a matter for him, by his removing to another station, to be better
supplied. If there was but a little water poured on every one that came
to be baptized by him, it would require a very great quantity of water
to baptize the vast multitudes that came to him; inasmuch as it is said,
that _Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan,
were baptized of him_: It is one thing for a little water to be brought
in a bason to baptize a person or two, and another thing for this to be
done in the case under our present consideration. Moreover, it is
certain, that in hot countries, and particularly in Judea; and more
especially in the wilderness thereof, there was a very great scarcity of
water; accordingly we read, sometimes, that water was so valuable a
thing, that it was reckoned a very considerable part of a man’s estate:
Thus Isaac was envied by the Philistines, for all the wells his father’s
servants had digged; and then we read of their stopping them up, and his
digging other wells; and also of the strife between the herdsmen of
Gerar, and his herdsmen, for the possession thereof, Gen. xxvi. 14,-20.
And we read, in Gen. xxi. 14,-16. that when Abraham sent Hagar away from
him with Ishmael, he gave her _bread_, and a _bottle of water_; and
_when the water was spent in the bottle, she cast the child under one of
the shrubs_, despairing of his life; which she need not have done, if
water was so easy to come by as it is supposed in this objection. It is
certain, that a person may travel many miles without finding water to
quench his thirst, in those desert places. This farther appears from
Samson’s being _ready to die for thirst_, after the great victory he had
obtained over the Philistines, on which occasion God wrought a miracle
to supply him, Judges xv. 18, 19, which can hardly be accounted for, if
there had been so great plenty of water in that country, as there is in
ours; this then, I apprehend to be the reason of John’s removal to
Jordan and Ænon; therefore it doth not necessarily prove that his design
was to baptize in that way that is pleaded for by those on the other
side of the question.
Moreover, as it doth not sufficiently appear to me, from any thing
contained in the objection, that John used immersion in baptism, so it
seems most agreeable, to some circumstances that attended it, to
conclude that he did not; inasmuch as there was no conveniency for the
change of their garments, nor servants appointed to help them therein;
which seems necessary to answer this occasion. And some have supposed,
that it might endanger the health of those who were infirm among them,
and John’s much more, who was obliged to stand many days together in the
water, or, at least, the greatest part thereof, while he was
administering this ordinance. And they who were baptized must
immediately retire when the ordinance was over, or it would endanger
their health; unless we have recourse to a dispensation of providence,
that is next to miraculous: Though I am sensible, some say, that none
ever suffered hereby in our day; which, if the observation be true, is a
kind providence that they ought to be thankful for.
But if, after all that has been said on this matter, it will not be
allowed that baptism signifies any thing else but dipping in water: Then
I might farther allege, that this might be done by dipping the face,
which is the principal part of the body, without plunging the whole
body; and this might answer the design of the ordinance as well as the
other; since it is not the quantity used in a sacramental sign that is
so much to be regarded, as the action performed, together with the
matter of it; if the smallest piece of bread, and a spoonful of wine are
used in the Lord’s supper, this is generally reckoned as well adapted to
answer the design of the ordinance, as if a great quantity of each were
received by every one that partakes of it. Now, as to what concerns our
present argument, the washing a part of the body is deemed sufficient to
signify the thing intended, as much as though the whole body had been
washed. Thus when our Saviour washed his disciples’ feet, and told
Peter, _If_ he _washed him not, he had no part in him_, John xiii. 5.
wherein (by the way) we may observe, that he calls washing his feet,
washing him, by a synecdoche, for a part of the whole; upon which
occasion Peter replies, _not my feet only, but also my hands and my
head_; and Jesus answered, _He that is washed needeth not, save to wash
his feet, but is clean every whit_, ver. 10. by which, I think, he
intends, that this signifies that cleansing, which is the spiritual
meaning thereof, as much as though the whole body had been washed with
water; for though one design hereof might be to teach them humility, and
brotherly kindness; yet it also signifies their being washed or cleansed
by his blood and Spirit.
_Obj._ 4. There is another objection on which very much stress is
generally laid, which I should not do justice to the cause I am
maintaining, if I should wholly pass it over, taken from what the
apostle says, in Rom. vi. 3, 4, 5. _so many of us as were baptized into
Christ Jesus, were baptized into his death: Therefore we were buried
with him by baptism[96] into death; that, like as Christ was raised up
from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in
newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of
his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection._ From
whence it is argued, that there ought to be a similitude between the
sign and the thing signified; and, consequently, that baptism should be
performed in such a way, that, by being covered with water, there might
be a resemblance of Christ’s burial; and by being lifted up out of the
water, a resemblance of his resurrection: Therefore this ordinance doth
not only signify the using the means of cleansing with water, but the
mode, namely, being plunged, or, as it were, buried in water.
_Answ._ To this it may be replied, that it is not agreeable to the
nature of a sacramental sign, in any other instance; that there should
be an analogy between the thing done, and what is signified thereby, any
otherwise than by divine appointment. Accordingly we observed, in the
foregoing answer, that a sacrament has not a natural tendency to signify
Christ, and his benefits; as the eating bread and drinking wine doth not
signify the body and blood of Christ, any otherwise than as this
signification is annexed by our Saviour, to the action performed; the
same, I think, may be applied to baptism; especially our consecration,
and dedication to God therein; and if any other external sign had been
instituted, to signify the blessings of the covenant of grace, we should
have been as much obliged to make use of it as we were of water.
Therefore, I conceive, the apostle, in this scripture, mentioned in the
objection, doth not refer to our being buried in water, or taken out of
it, as a natural sign of Christ’s burial and resurrection; but our
having communion with him in his burial and resurrection. This, I think,
would hardly be denied by many, on the other side of the question, did
not the objection, but now mentioned, and the cause they maintain,
render it expedient for them to understand the words in another sense.
This is all that I shall say with respect to this matter in controversy,
as to the subjects and mode of baptism; in which, as I should have been
unfaithful, had I said less to it; so I have not the least inclination
to treat those that differ from me in an unfriendly way, as having a
just sense of their harmony with us, especially a great part of them, in
those doctrines that have a more immediate reference to our salvation.
We shall now proceed to consider, that as there are some who appear to
be grossly ignorant of the thing signified in baptism, who seem to
engage in it, as though it were not a divine institution, concluding it
to be little more than an external rite or form to be used in giving the
child a name, being induced hereto rather by custom, than a sense of the
obligation they are under, to give up their children to God by faith
therein; so there are others who attribute too much to it, when they
assert, that infants are hereby regenerated; and that if they die before
they commit actual sin, they are undoubtedly saved, inasmuch as they are
hereby made members of Christ, children of God, and heirs of the kingdom
of heaven: This seems to be an ascribing that to the ordinance, which is
rather expected or desired, than conferred thereby.
As for the child’s being signed with the sign of the cross, signifying
hereby that he should not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ
crucified, but manfully to fight under his banner against sin, the
world, and the devil; how much soever this may be a branch of that
baptismal obligation, which he is professedly under; yet I cannot see
what warrant persons have to make use of this external sign and symbol,
which can be reckoned no other than an ordinance for their faith, though
destitute of a divine institution.
There is also another thing practised by some in baptism, that is
greatly abused, namely, the requiring that some should be appointed as
sureties for the child, by whom it is personated; and they engage, in a
solemn manner, in its behalf, that it shall fulfil the obligation that
it is laid under, which is not only more than what is in their power to
perform; but it is to be feared, that the greatest part of these
sureties hardly think themselves obliged to shew any concern about them
afterward. And that which is farther exceptionable in this matter, is
that the parents, who are more immediately obliged to give up their
children to God, seem to be, as it were, excluded from having any hand
in this matter.
I have nothing to except against the first rise of this practice; which
was in the second century, when the church was under persecution; and
the design thereof was laudable and good, namely, that if the parents
should die before the child came of age; whereby it would be in danger
of being seized on by the Heathen, and trained up in their superstitious
and idolatrous mode of worship, the sureties promised, that, in this
case, they would deal with it as though it were their own child, and,
bring it up in the Christian religion; which kind and pious concern for
its welfare, might have been better expressed at some other time than in
baptism, lest this should be thought an appendix to that ordinance:
However, through the goodness of God, the children of believing parents
are not reduced to those hazardous circumstances; and therefore the
obligation to do this, is less needful; but to vow, and not perform, is
not only useless to the child, but renders that only a matter of form,
which they promise to do in this sacred ordinance.
The only thing that I shall add under this answer, is, that if we have
been baptized, either in our infancy, or when adult, we are obliged, in
faithfulness, as we value our own souls, to improve it to the glory of
God, and our spiritual welfare in the whole conduct of our lives. And
this leads us to what is contained in the following answer.
Footnote 69:
Μαθητεισατε.
Footnote 70:
_Vid Whitby in Loc._
Footnote 71:
This then is a repetition; go, _teach_, baptize, _teach_. This
commission was to _disciple_ the world, baptizing and teaching are the
specification, and are participles agreeing with the nomination.
It is no inference from the position of baptizing before teaching are
that adults might be first baptized. This was the institution of the
ordinance of baptism as well as the apostolic commission; yet it
neither contains any direction either as to the mode or subjects;
because Christ spoke to Jews, who knew that adult proselytes were
carefully examined, whilst infants were circumcised with their parents
without such examination. They also knew the various modes of
religious purifications among the Jews; both John the Baptist, and
they having under that dispensation baptized. Neither is faith
essential to the validity of baptism, nor is the profession of it
required of such as are incapable of making it.
Footnote 72:
To be brought into the visible church, is a high privilege, of which
infants are as capable now, as under the former dispensation. Consent
is not necessary; for infants receive inheritances. _This is by force
of municipal laws._ But are not the laws of God of equal
force?—_Baptism implies obligations, which can be founded only on
consent._ Then it will follow that infants are not bound by human
laws, for they have not assented to the social compact; they are under
no obligation to obey parents, guardians, or masters, because they
either did not choose them, or were incompetent to make such choice;
they are not bound by the laws of God himself, which is this very
case, because they have not consented to his authority; and if they
never consent, they will be always free equally from all obligations,
and all sin. Such are the consequences of the above objection.
Footnote 73:
The dictates of nature, uncontrouled by revelation, are the will of
Christ, and our rule of duty. The _will of Christ_, expressed in these
dictates, requires us to benefit our children as they are capable.
_Baptism_, as the initiatory seal of God’s covenant, is a _benefit_ of
which infants are _capable_.—This evidence is not _eclipsed_, but
_brightened_, by scripture authority, as we shall see in the sequel of
this chapter.
Let the reader carefully notice, that we do not suppose, by insisting
on this argument, the insufficiency of _direct scripture_ evidence:
for _this_ has been frequently urged with advantage, to satisfy
persons of the best dispositions and abilities. That is, reader, “some
of the most eminent Pœdobaptists that ever filled the Professor’s
chair, or that ever yet adorned the Protestant pulpit.” But since our
opponents insist, that what has been so often urged, is not
conclusive; and _modestly_ affirm, it is only calculated to catch “the
eye of a _superficial_ observer;” they are desired once more
impartially to weigh this reasoning, and then, if they are able, to
refute it. Let them know, however, that hackneyed phrases without
meaning—principles taken upon trust—and empty declamation—must not be
palmed on us instead of solid arguments.
Were it necessary, it would be easy to shew, that the principles above
urged are no _novelty_; but are perfectly agreeable to experience,—and
to the practical judgment of the most serious Pœdobaptists, both
illiterate and learned. But waving this, we proceed next to another
corroborating proof of the main proposition.
What we contend for is. That it is the _will of Christ_ we should
_baptize_ our infant children. In proof of this we have shewn, first,
that the _dictates of right reason_ require us to _benefit_ them, and
consequently to _baptize_ them; as baptism is always a benefit when
administered to _capable_ subjects. We come, secondly, to shew—That
God has constantly approved of _this principle_, in all _preceding_
dispensations. In other words—That the _principle_ of the last
argument is so far from being _weakened_ by scripture evidence, that
the Lord’s _approbation_ of _it_, in his conduct towards the offspring
of his professing people, in all the dispensations of true religion,
is abundantly _illustrated_ and _confirmed_.
Mr. B’s misapplied but favourite maxim—“Positive laws imply their
negative,” has no force in the baptismal controversy, until he
demonstrates, in opposition to what is advanced, that the dictates of
right reason must be _smothered_, or else, that revelation
countermands their influence. But to _demonstrate_ the former, in
matters about which, on the supposition, scripture is silent, is no
easy task. And the difficulty will be _increased_ in proportion as the
sacred oracles corroborate reason’s verdict. Let us now appeal to
these oracles.
We appeal to that period of the church, and dispensation of grace,
which extended from Adam to Noah. The inspired narrative of this long
space of time is very short: on which we make the following remarks.
We then assert,
Whatever exhibition of grace was made to antediluvian _parents_, was
constantly made to their _offspring_; and consequently whatever seals
of grace were granted to the former, must equally appertain to the
latter if not voluntary _rejectors_ of them. Therefore, all such
parents had a _revealed_ warrant to regard their offspring as entitled
to the _seals_ of the covenant, in _like manner_ as themselves,
according to their capacity. For,
All allow that Gen. iii. 15. contains the promulgation of gospel
grace; nor are we authorised to question the interest of _children_
therein with their parents, without an express contravention. For, it
were _unnatural_ for a parent to _confine_ such a _benefit_ to his own
person to the exclusion of his children, who are not only parts of his
family but of _himself_. To which we may add, that the phrase _thy
seed_, though principally referring to the Messiah, respected Eve’s
_natural seed_ as sharers in common with herself in the exhibition of
mercy; and we suppose not less so than her _husband_. For this
application of the phrase _thy seed_, compare Gen. xvii. 7. and Gal.
iii. 16. Again,
It is generally agreed, that not only the institution of _sacrifices_,
but also the _coats_ of skin, (Gen. iii. 21.) were _emblematic_ of
covenant blessings; and not only so, in common with mere types, but
_seals_ of the covenant, as earnests and pledges of exhibited favour.
“Who will deny,” says Witsius, “that God’s cloathing our first parents
was a _symbolical_ act? Do not Christ’s own words (Rev. iii. 18.) very
clearly allude to this?” As for _sacrifices_, they were slain at God’s
command after the promulgation of the covenant. For, if Abel _offered
by faith_, (Heb xi. 4.) it presupposes the divine _institution_ of
them. And this institution, most probably, took place when God—taking
occasion from the insufficiency of the aprons of fig-leaves, which the
fallen pair sewed together, to cover the shame of their
nakedness—himself cloathed them with coats of skins. And most divines
agree, that it is very probable, these were the skins of those beasts
which were slain for _sacrifices_. However, God gave testimony to
these oblations of the ancient patriarchs, that they were _acceptable_
to him; but this cannot be supposed without admitting them to be
_divinely instituted_. Besides, a distinction of _clean_ and _unclean_
animals was observed before the deluge; which was not from _nature_,
but the mere divine pleasure; and may we not add, with a particular
respect to _sacrifices_? Now,
If, according to Witsius and others, these _skins of beasts_, and
_sacrifices_, were appointed _seals of the righteousness of faith_; I
would ask—Was the _covenant_ directed for the use of their _seed in
common_ with the parents, and not the _seal_ in like manner? For, if
the seals be affixed to the covenant for _confirmation_ of its
contents, as well as, in another view, for signification; I would fain
know, by what rule of construction we can infer, that the covenant
_itself_ belongs to the parents and their seed _in common_, while the
_confirmation_ of it belongs _exclusively_ to the former? Is it not
contrary to _custom_ and _unreasonable_ to conclude, that a charter of
privileges, or a testamentary instrument, (which by the way express
the nature of the covenant) belongs to a man and his heirs _alike_,
but the confirming seal respects the former _only_; while on the
supposition, the sovereign, or the testator, has given _no ground_ for
such partiality? Besides,
If the covenant itself be a benefit to the persons to whom it is
directed, as it certainly is in _every_ dispensation of it, it follows
that the _confirmation_ of it is so; for parents, therefore, to _deny_
their offspring all the share in such common benefits they are capable
of, without a divine warrant, is _unnatural_, and an act of
_injustice_. We may therefore conclude—that from Adam to Noah, the
_covenant_ and its _seals_ appertained to _infants_ in common with
their parents.
We appeal next to that period of the church which extended from Noah
to Abraham: On which we observe,
Whatever benefits and privileges belonged to the former dispensation,
continue to flow on to the present, if not _expressly_ repealed; for
the change of a dispensation _of itself_, is no adequate cause of
their abrogation. That would be as unreasonable as to suppose that the
bare change from night to day was, _of itself_, an adequate cause of a
man’s being disinherited. Or we may as well say, that the abstract
notion of an epoch in chronology has a real influence on the sequence
of events. Whatever covenant privileges, therefore, belonged to Noah
and his family _before_ the deluge, if not expressly repealed, must
belong to them _after_ the deluge. But,
So far were these privileges from being abridged at this period, that
they were greatly enlarged and confirmed, by additional discoveries.
For thus we read, Gen. vi. 18. _But with thee will I establish my
covenant; and thou shall come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and
thy wife, and thy sons’ wives with thee._ Again, chap. vii. 1. _And
the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou, and all thy house into the ark;
for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation._ And
again, chap. viii. 20. _And Noah builded an altar unto the Lord; and
took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered
burnt-offerings on the altar._ Once more, chap. ix. 8, 9, 12, 13. _And
God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying, And I, behold,
I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you. And
God said, This is the token of the covenant I do set my bow in the
cloud._ Hence we further learn,
That the covenant or divine charter, first given to Noah, _included_
the preceding; it was the _same covenant_ with _additional grants_:
for the Lord says, “I will _establish_ my covenant.” Lest Noah should
infer that the drowning of the world in wrath disannulled the well
known covenant, God dissipates his fears, by saying, “I will
_establish_ my covenant.”
On Noah’s _account_, or _as belonging_ to him, _all his house_ or
family was privileged. The privilege is,—“Come thou, and _all thy
house_ into the ark.” The ground and reason of that privilege—“_for
thee have I seen righteous_.” It is true, the natural dictates of
reason and affection, whereby a _father pitieth his children_, and
whereby an infidel _careth for his own, especially those of his own
house_, would have prompted this righteous person to bring _all his
family_, (except any adults _refused_ compliance) into the ark, (_the
like figure whereunto is baptism_, as an inspired teacher assures us,
1 Pet. iii. 21.) yet the Lord was pleased to brighten his evidence and
strengthen his obligations of duty by express revelation.
After the flood the institution of _sacrifices_ continued as the seal
of the _first_ part of the covenant; and the _rainbow_ was instituted
as the seal of the _additional_ part, or, as Pareus calls it,
“_appendix_ of the covenant of grace.” And here it is worthy of
notice, that as the first exhibition of the covenant and its seals
respected the offspring of _fœderati_, and the _renewal_ or
_establishment_ of it to Noah retained that privilege in full force:
so also the _appendix_ of the covenant comprehended his _seed_.
Respecting this appendix of the covenant of which the rainbow was the
seal, though we suppose, with Witsius, it was not formally and
precisely the covenant of grace; yet we observe, with the same
excellent author, “it does not seem consistent with the divine
perfections, to make such a covenant with every living creature, but
on _supposition_ of a covenant of grace, and having a _respect_ to
it.” And as this covenant, in its universality, implied the covenant
of grace, we are not to deny, but the promises of it were also
_sealed_ to Noah and his seed by the rainbow. See Rev. iv. 3. x. 8.
It is observable, finally, that Noah his _sons_, and _their seed_ were
_fœderati_, in this ratification of the covenant; consequently
whatever _seals_ of the covenant belonged to Noah, belonged to _his
sons_, and _their seed_, while non-dissentients.
Appeal we next to a very important period of sacred history, viz. From
Abraham to Moses. On this also we make the following remarks.
The Abrahamic covenant _included_ the preceding dispensations, on the
general principle—that grants and privileges continue in force until
_repealed_. Which repealing, if it be not either _express_, or arise
from the nature of the case, in itself _plain_, can have no binding
influence, that is to say, no existence at all: except we maintain,
that we are _bound_ to resign an important good without an assignable
cause; which is in fact to maintain that we ought to _deny_ that to
be, which is.
I suppose it will be granted, that the _principal blessing_ exhibited
in the foregoing dispensations was _the righteousness of faith_; the
great importance of which to the human race, in every age of the
world, no one will deny who considers things _as they are_. This
covenant, therefore, was in force to Abraham _prior_ to what is called
the Abrahamic dispensation; and in this connexion we might mention Lot
and his family. But, behold,