Quest. CLXV.

QUEST. CLXV. What is baptism?

ANSW. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, wherein Christ hath ordained the washing with water, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, to be a sign and seal of ingrafting into himself, of remission of sins by his blood, and regeneration by his Spirit; of adoption and resurrection unto everlasting life; and whereby the parties baptized are solemnly admitted into the visible church, and enter into an open and professed engagement, to be wholly and only the Lord’s.

The method in which we shall endeavour to explain this answer shall be,

I. To prove that baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, instituted by Christ, in which there is to be, some way or other, the application of water.

II. That this is to be performed in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. And,

III. What is signified therein, and what engagements are laid upon the person baptized.

I. To prove that baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, instituted by Christ, in which there is to be, some way or other, the application of water. Here let it be considered,

1. That there must be the application of water; and that either by dipping the person that is to be baptized into the water, or by pouring or sprinkling water upon him; otherwise it doth not answer the proper and literal sense of the word baptize.[59] It is true, we sometimes find the word used in a metaphorical sense; as when our Saviour speaks of the baptism that he was to be baptized with, Matt. xx. 22. Luke xii. 50. whereby he intends the sufferings he was to endure in shedding his blood upon the cross: And it is elsewhere taken, by a metonymy, for the conferring the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost, which they were given to expect after Christ’s ascension into heaven, and the apostles were first made partakers of at the day of Pentecost, which immediately followed it; wherein there appeared unto them cloven tongues, like as of fire, that sat upon each of them, as a sign that they should be filled with the Holy Ghost, and speak with other tongues, and be enflamed with a holy zeal for Christ’s glory and interest; which was accordingly fulfilled, and seems to be the sense of the word baptism, as taken in this figurative sense; but we understand the word in the most proper sense thereof; and therefore suppose that it must be performed with water.

As to what respects the mode of baptism, or the application of water, whether the water is to be applied to the person baptized, or he put into it, that, I purposely wave the consideration of, till we are led to speak concerning the subjects of baptism, that we may insist on the several matters in controversy, between those that maintain, and others that deny infant baptism, together, which we shall have occasion to do under the next answer: Whereas, I am ready to persuade myself, that what I shall advance under this, together with that which respects the improvement of baptism, will not be much contested by those who are in a different way of thinking, with respect to the subjects of baptism, and the mode of administering it.

2. We are now to consider, that baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament; and therefore it differs from those baptisms, or washings, that were frequently practised under the Old Testament dispensation; concerning which, the apostle says, that it stood in meats and drinks, and divers washings, Heb. ix. 10. or baptisms[60]. Thus we read of many instances in which persons were washed under the ceremonial law: This was an ordinance used in the consecration of persons to holy offices; as it is said, that Aaron and his sons were to be brought to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and washed with water, Exod. xxix. 4. and Lev. viii. 6. when they were consecrated to be priests. Again, when they ministered in holy things, or came near unto the altar, it is said, they washed, as the Lord commanded Moses, Exod. xl. 32. for this reason the laver was set between the tent of the congregation and the altar, and water put therein to wash in; and they washed their hands and their feet therein, ver. 30, 31. And this ceremony was used by them, when they were subject to divers uncleannesses; thus, in the method of cleansing the leper, he was to wash himself, and, after that might come into the camp, Lev. xvi. 8, 9. The same thing was to be done by those who were liable to uncleannesses of another nature, Deut. xxii. 10, 11.

These ceremonial washings, when applied to persons, seem to be ordained to signify their consecration, or dedication, to God, in some of the instances before mentioned; and in others, they signified the means which God had ordained to cleanse the soul from moral impurity; which was denoted by the ceremonial uncleannesses which they desired to be purified from. These ordinances, indeed, expired together with the rest of the ceremonial law: Nevertheless, it is very evident, from the institution of gospel-baptism, that the sign is retained; though there are some circumstances in the thing signified thereby, in which it differs from those baptisms which were formerly used by the Jewish church. They were hereby devoted to God, to observe that peculiar mode of worship which he prescribed by the hand of his servant Moses; we are devoted to God, as those who hereby signify our obligation to walk according to the rules prescribed by Christ in the gospel. They also used this ordinance, to signify the cleansing virtue of the blood of Jesus, who was to come, and the Spirit that was to be poured forth, as consequent thereupon; we use it to signify or express our faith in what Christ has accomplished, and in the grace which the Spirit works pursuant thereunto; therefore we call it an ordinance of the New Testament.

3. Baptism was instituted by Christ. This is evident from the commission he gave to his apostles, not only to preach the gospel to all nations, but to baptize them in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Matt. xxviii. 19.[61] and this he appointed to be a standing ordinance in the church, throughout all the ages thereof; on which account he promises, in the following words, that he will be with his ministers, in fulfilling the commission that he gave them to execute, unto the end of the world: Therefore, we must conclude, that it is a standing ordinance in the church, and not designed to be observed only during the first age thereof, till Christianity universally obtained. This we assert in opposition to the Socinians, who suppose, that baptism was, indeed, instituted by Christ; but the design hereof, was only to be an external badge, or sign, of the heathens embracing the Christian religion, as they were formerly initiated into the Jewish church by that ceremonial washing that was then in use: But the contrary to this will appear from what we shall have occasion to speak to, under a following head, when we consider what baptism was a sign and seal of; which is equally applicable to the church in our day, as it was to those who lived in the first planting thereof.

II. It is farther observed, that baptism is to be performed in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. This contains in it a professed acknowledgment, in this solemn act of dedication of the divine Trinity; and accordingly it is an act of religious worship, in which God’s right to the persons baptized, is publicly owned, and an intimation given, that all saving blessings, which are desired or expected in this ordinance, are given by the Father, through a Mediator, purchased by the Son, and applied by the Holy Spirit. This includes in it much more than a being baptized by the authority of these divine persons; which is all that some of the Antitrinitarians will allow to be meant by, in their name: For though no ordinance can be rightly performed but by a divine warrant, yet this warrant is equally extended to the administering, or engaging in any other ordinance; and therefore, a being baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, signifies more than this; namely, a person’s being dedicated to them; in which dedication, a solemn profession is made, that they have a right to all religious worship, which we are obliged to perform as well as that all our hope of salvation is from them: Therefore, some think, that this idea, which is principally intended in the form of baptism, would be better expressed, if the words of institution[62] were rendered into the name of the Father, &c. as it is rendered elsewhere, Gal. iii. 27. where the apostle is speaking of a person’s being baptized into Christ[63], and explains it as denoting a putting on Christ; or a professing, as it is said, ver. 29. that we are Christ’s. Thus they who are baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are denoted hereby, to be professedly their servants and subjects; under an indispensible obligation to put their trust in, and hope for, all saving blessings from them, according to the tenor of the gospel.

It is enquired, by some, whether it be absolutely necessary, in the administration of this ordinance, explicitly to make mention of the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? and some assert, that it is not; because we read of persons being baptized in the name of Jesus, in Acts xix. 5. without any mention of the name of the Father, or Holy Ghost; and in chap. viii. 16. the same thing is mentioned, as it is said, They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. But to this it may be replied, that it does not appear, that this was the express form of words used in baptizing those that are here mentioned; but it only argues, that the ordinance was administered, and that Christ’s name and glory was proclaimed therein: So that, though the other divine persons are not particularly mentioned, it does not follow from thence, that they did not adhere to the express words of institution, which were given to the apostles; it might as well be argued, that John did not baptize in the name of any of the Divine persons; since when we read of his baptism, it is said, I baptize you with water; but it does not thence follow, that he did not baptize them in the name of God; inasmuch as he plainly confesses that God sent him to baptize with water, John i. 33.

But, that this matter may be set in a just light, we must distinguish between a person’s omitting to mention the Son or Holy Ghost, in the form of baptism, as denying them to be divine persons, (in which case the ordinance is invalid;) and his doing this for no other reason, but because he thinks that we are not to be tied up to a particular form of words, but may sometimes baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and, at other times, in the name of Jesus: In this case, I will not say that the ordinance is invalid; but yet, his manner of administering it, will be highly offensive to many serious Christians, and can hardly be reckoned an instance of faithfulness to Christ; who has, by an express command, intimated what words are to be used therein.

III. We are now to consider, what is signified in baptism, and what engagements are laid on the person baptized. There are some, especially among the Socinians, who maintain, that it is only an external, or visible badge of Christianity in general, signifying a person’s right to be called a Christian, or a professor of that religion, which was instituted by our Saviour; and their design herein seems to be, that they might evade the force of the argument which we bring to prove the divinity of the Son and Spirit, from their being the object of that religious worship, which according to our explication thereof, is contained in it. Did they intend, by being a Christian, the same thing as we do, namely, a subjection to Christ, as a divine person, or a professed obligation which we are laid under, to worship God the Father, through the Son, by the Spirit, we should have no contention with them about this matter: But since we are not agreed as to the meaning of being a Christian, especially, since they intend no more hereby than our being obliged to adhere to a certain scheme of religious worship prescribed by Christ, of what kind soever it be, in like manner as a person is called a Mahometan, because he embraces Mahomet’s Alcoran as a rule of faith, we cannot think this general account of baptism, as an external badge of Christianity, to be a sufficient explication of what is intended by it as a sign, or significant ordinance.

There are several things mentioned in this answer, of which, it is said, to be a sign and seal, viz. of our engrafting into Christ, and obtaining remission of sins by his blood, of our regeneration by his Spirit, our adoption, and resurrection unto eternal life, which include in them all the benefits of Christ’s mediation; which have been particularly explained under some foregoing answers: But there is one that contains in it all the rest; and accordingly it is generally expressed, by divines, as that which is a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, and all the duties, obligations, and privileges that are either enjoined or bestowed therein. What this covenant is, together with the blessings thereof, and how the grace of God is manifested therein, has been likewise considered under some foregoing answers[65]. Therefore all that I shall now add concerning it, is, that it contains all the promises in which our salvation is included, of which there is one that comprehends all the rest, whereby it is often expressed, namely, that God will be a God unto his people, Gen. xiv. 1. their shield, and exceeding great reward, chap. xvii. And elsewhere that he will put his laws into their minds, and write them in their hearts, and will be to them a God; and they shall be to him a people, Heb. viii. 10. There are very great privileges contained in this relation, namely, our being under the special care and protection of Christ, having a right to what he has purchased, and that inheritance which he has laid up in heaven for his children, their enjoying communion with him here, and being made happy with him hereafter.

Now the main thing to be considered, is, how baptism is a sign and seal thereof? To this it may be answered, that we are not to suppose that this, or any other ordinance, confers the grace of the covenant, as the Papists pretend[66]; for it is, at most, but a significant sign or seal thereof; whereas, the grace of the covenant is the thing signified thereby. There are, as has been before observed two ways, by which persons may be said to be in covenant with God, namely, professedly, or visibly, which is the immediate intent and design of this ordinance; and there is a being in covenant, as laying hold on the grace of the covenant, when we give up ourselves to Christ, by faith; and, as the consequence thereof, lay claim to the blessings of his redemption. Now baptism is a sign and seal of the covenant of grace in both these senses, though in different respects. The ordinance itself is a professed dedication to God, or an acknowledgment that the person baptized is obliged to be the Lord’s; and signifies his right to the external blessings of the covenant of grace, which are contained in the gospel-dispensation. There is also more than this contained in a person’s being given to God in baptism, whether it be by himself as in those who are baptized when adult; or by his parents, as in the case of infants, in that the person who dedicates, expresses his faith in Christ, the Mediator of the covenant, and hopes for the saving blessings which he has purchased for his people. It is one thing, for this ordinance to confer these blessings, and another, for it to be an instituted means, in which we express our faith and hope, that these blessings shall be bestowed, the person being devoted to God with that view.

There are other two things that are more especially signified in baptism, namely, privileges expected, and obligations acknowledged.

1. The privileges expected are such as accompany salvation, which are the special gift of the Holy Ghost, viz. the taking away the guilt and pollution of sin, and our being made partakers of all the blessings that Christ hath purchased, and God the Father, in him, has promised to the heirs of salvation. I do not say, that all who are baptized are made partakers of these privileges; but they are given up to God, or give up themselves to him in this ordinance, in hope of obtaining them.

2. Here is a public profession, or acknowledgment of our obligation to be the Lord’s. This is, from the nature of the thing, implied in its being a dedication to God. When we make a surrender of ourselves to him, we do hereby declare, that we are willing to be his servants and subjects, and entirely at his disposal: This is contained in a fiducial act of self-dedication to God, and cannot be done by one in the behalf of another: And, it is to be feared, that many, who give up themselves to God in this ordinance, when adult, though they make a profession of their faith, yet do not give up themselves by faith; but that is only known to the heart-searching God: Nevertheless, as we express our faith and hope, in this ordinance, concerning the privileges but now mentioned; so we, in this act of dedication, confess, that God has a right to us, and that it is our indispensible duty to be his, so that hereby we are, either by our own consent, as in self-dedication, professedly the Lord’s; or this is acknowledged by those who have a right to dedicate, and thereby to signify this obligation; which, because it is highly just and reasonable, the persons devoted are obliged to stand to, or else are brought under a great degree of guilt, in not being stedfast in God’s covenant.

There is one thing more mentioned in this answer, namely, that the person baptized, is solemnly admitted into the visible church, which I rather choose to pass over; since it is hard to understand what some mean by the visible church, and a person’s becoming a member thereof by baptism. We have elsewhere considered the difficulties that are contained in the description of the visible church; together with the qualifications for, and admission of persons into church-communion.[67] If, by being admitted into the visible church, we are to understand that a person has a right to all the ordinances of the church by baptism, without being admitted afterwards into it by mutual consent; this is contrary to the faith and practice of most of the reformed churches. And if, on the other hand, they mean hereby, that here is a public declaration of our hope, that the person baptized shall be made partaker of those privileges which Christ has purchased for, and given to his church: This is no more than what has been already explained in our considering the baptismal expectations and obligations; but, whether this can be properly called an admission into the church, I rather leave to be determined by those who better understand what they mean, when they say that this is done in baptism, than I do.[68]

Footnote 59:

Βαπτιζω, has been said to signify immergo and exclusively when applied to sacred baptism. And this is necessary to establish immersion as the only mode. The question is not, therefore, whether Βαπτιζω, sometimes signifies to immerse, but whether it never signifies any thing else. This can be proved, it is presumed, by no Lexicographer, and no version of the New Testament. In the New Testament it is taken in different senses, for example we read of a Baptism with the Holy Ghost and with fire. It is therefore a generic term and not specific, as immerse cannot be substituted for it in all places. If a specific Greek term signifying to plunge had occasionally been used for it, in the New Testament, yet baptism being in our Saviour’s commission to his disciples, should not have been confined to one mode, but this is never the case. The numerous admissions of our divines, that Βαπτιζω, primarily signifies to immerse, and which are disingenuously collected to impose on the ignorant; do not weaken our cause, as they did neither influence the practice nor sentiments of those who used them.

If Βαπτιζω, signifies to immerse totally, or partially; to dip, to cleanse, or purify, &c. it leaves the mode to our convenience or choice; and reason also accords, that the mode is unimportant with respect to moral defilement.—Porphery has “Βαπτιζεται μεχρι κεφαλης.” The oracle said “Βαπτιζη him as a bottle” (of leather, which could swim) “but it is not lawful to plunge him wholly under water.” Strabo says, “Βαπτιζομενων up to the waist.” Aristotle says “Βαπτεικαι ανθιζει τηνχειρα,” it stains and renders florid the hand. Aristophanes says, “Βαπτομενος Βραχειοις,” stained with tawny colours. Homer says, “¨Εβαπτετο δ᾽᾽ αιματι λιμνω,” And the fountain was tinged with blood. Rev. xix. 13. “Ιματων Βεβαμενον αιματι.” Isaiah xxi. 4. “Fearfulness Βαπτιζει me.”

Footnote 60:

Διαφοροις βαπτισμοις.

Footnote 61:

The promulgation of this command marks a new and important era in the history of the church and of the world. These words may be considered as the public and formal abrogation of the Mosaic economy; and the authoritative annunciation of the new order of things under the gospel.

The first communications of divine truth, through Adam and Noah, were made indiscriminately to the human family; but, in both instances, the precious deposit was generally adulterated, and nearly lost. The wisdom of God, therefore, saw it to be necessary to select and separate from the idolatrous world, a particular family which might serve as a repository of the divine oracles and institutions; until that ‘Seed of the woman’ should come, of whom it was predicted, that he should ‘bruise the serpent’s head:’ and that ‘seed of Abraham’ in whom all the families of the earth should be blessed.

But when JESUS CHRIST, our great high-priest of good things to come, had, through the eternal Spirit, offered himself without spot to God, to bear the sins of many; and had by this one offering of his own body, perfected them that are sanctified, the service of the first tabernacle was set aside, and as to any utility, or divine authority, ceased forever; as an emblem of which, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom, at the very moment of expiation; when Christ our high-priest, by sheding his vital blood and pouring out his soul unto death, offered his one great sacrifice for sins.

So great, however, was the power of early and national prejudice, that the apostles did not, for some time, understand the extent of their commission. They had, before, been sent on a short mission, on which occasion it was ordered, that they should not go into the way of the Gentiles, nor even enter into any city of the Samaritans; and they seem to have thought, that by going into all the world, and preaching to every creature, no more was intended, than that they should go to the seed of Abraham now widely dispersed among the nations. But this veil was soon removed, by a particular revelation made to Peter in a vision; and by the calling of Paul to the apostleship, who, from the beginning, received commission to go to the Gentiles, and was, in a peculiar manner, designated and directed, to preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ.

DR. ALEXANDER’S MISSIONARY SERMON.

Footnote 62:

Εις τὸ ὁνομα.

Footnote 63:

Εις Χριστόν.

Footnote 65:

See vol. II. Quest. XXXI, XXXII. Page 167, & 185.

Footnote 66:

There is a common aphorism among them, that the sacraments, and baptism in particular, confer grace, ex opere operato.

Footnote 67:

See vol. II. page 166-216.

Footnote 68:

The Gospel is glad tidings of great joy, not a system of new and terrifying restrictions and exclusions; so far from retracting formerly conceded privileges, and confining the church within narrower limits, it publishes peace and salvation, and invites the whole human family to participate in these blessings. It must either be referred to the impressions it has made, or to uninterrupted usage that females have, by a general consent, been deemed to possess an unquestionable right to approach the holy communion, though neither precept for it is found, nor an example of it recorded in the Scriptures. This baptism of infants was still less necessary to be enjoined by, and less likely to have been noticed in the short history given us of apostolical transactions.

He who gave parental affection, and is the Lord of his church under every dispensation, conferred on children at an early age of the world the privilege of sharing with their parents in the seals of grace, and bearing the tokens of his covenant. Jewish christians having themselves experienced such benignity, and been given to the same God, whom they now served under brighter displays of his eternal and unchangeable love, could not have expected, that, an entrance into the milder gospel-church would have been denied to the seed whom God had given them, and whom they had devoted to him not only in prayer, but in that ordinance which he had appointed for the purpose. An ordinance which being now obsolete was supplied by another, apparently as proper for their children as themselves. Because infants are incapable of repenting and believing, these duties were not required nor expected of them, either under the old, or new dispensation; but though incapable of actual sin, and therefore free from obligations of obedience unto the law, yet their nature is not pure, and consequently needs the sanctifying influence of divine grace, which can correct the latent enmity, and renew the soul. They are capable, therefore, of spiritual blessings, and may consequently be members of the invisible church, and received into the church triumphant. The obvious reasonableness of the privilege of being received with their parents into the society of the worshippers of God, a privilege publicly known to have been conferred by the great Head of the church, equally prevented the supposition of an implied repeal, and the necessity of a renewal of the right.

If indeed there had been a different religion introduced; if christians were not engrafted into the old stock; if they worshipped some other than the God of Israel; if there was another moral law, another Christ than he whose day the fathers anticipated, and another faith; this privilege of receiving infants into the church might have been interrupted; and in that case unless expressly again enjoined, it ought not to have been regarded in practice. But if the christian religion is founded upon the prophets; if the peculiarities of the Jewish worship were but shadows of gospel things; if both were directed to the same glory of God and salvation of men; if they both enjoined the same holiness and presented the same object of faith; if those who were saved under the Old Testament shall be associated with those who are saved under the New; the privileges formerly granted to children will remain the same; and it is not wonderful that the first christian should obey the dictates of parental tenderness; and that desiring the salvation of their children as well as their own, should cause their households to be baptized as well as themselves. To have affirmed in the gospel history expressly, that children were a part of the household, could have answered no purpose in the first days of christianity, but would have been thought repetitions and unmeaning until modern times. In the fifth, in the third and even so early as in the second century, the baptism of infants was the established usage of the church, and it was then thought, and not disputed, to have been the practice of the apostles themselves.