Quest. CLXVI.

QUEST. CLXVI. Unto whom is baptism to be administered?

Answ. Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him; but infants descending from parents, either both, or but one of them, professing faith in Christ, and obedience to him, are in that respect within the covenant, and to be baptised.

In this answer, which principally respects the subjects of baptism, we have,

I. An account of those who are excluded from this privilege, viz. such as are out of the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise. The visible church is here considered in the most large and less proper acceptation of the word, as denoting all who profess the true religion; and in this respect is opposed to the Jews and heathen, and those who, though they live in a Christian nation, are grossly ignorant of the gospel, and act as though they thought that it did not belong to them, not seeing themselves obliged to make any profession thereof: These may be ranked among infidels, as much as the heathen themselves; and, according to this sense of the word, are not members of the visible church; and, consequently, while they remain so, are not to be admitted to baptism. This is agreeable to the sentiments and practice of most of the reformed churches; and it cannot but be reckoned highly reasonable, by all who consider baptism as an ordinance in which a public profession is made of the person’s being devoted to God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and, if he be considered as adult (and of such we are now speaking) there is a signification, and thereby a profession made, that he gives up himself to God; and, if the ordinance be rightly applied, there must be an harmony between the inward design of the person dedicating, and the true intent and meaning of the external sign thereof; which, by divine appointment, is a visible declaration of his adhering by faith, to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and embracing that salvation which takes its rise from them. This therefore must be done by faith; or else the ordinance is engaged in after an hypocritical manner; which will tend to God’s dishonour, and the prejudice rather than the advantage of him, to whom it is administered.

II. We are now to consider the necessity of their making a profession of their faith in Christ, and obedience to him, who being adult, are admitted to baptism. It was supposed, under the last head, that if there be not an harmony between the internal frame of spirit, in the person baptized, and the intent of the external sign thereof, the ordinance is not rightly applied to him, inasmuch as he pretends to dedicate himself to God; but, in reality does not do this by faith: And now it may be farther considered, that it is necessary that he should make it appear, that he is a believer, by a profession of his faith; otherwise, he that administers the ordinance, together with the assembly, who are present at the same time, cannot conclude that they are performing a service that is acceptable to God; therefore, for their sakes, as well as his own, the person to be baptized, ought to make a profession of his subjection to Christ, as what is signified in this ordinance.

This is agreeable to the words of institution, in Matt. xxviii. 19. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them, &c. and in Mark xvi. 15. Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature; he that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved, &c. I am sensible that some, who have defended infant-baptism, or rather attempted to answer objection taken from this, and such like scriptures against it, have endeavoured to prove the Greek word[69] signifies, make persons disciples; and accordingly it is a metaphor taken from the practice of a person’s being put under the care of one who is qualified to instruct him, whose disciple he is said to be, in order to his being taught by him; and therefore they suppose, that we are made disciples by baptism, and afterwards to be taught to observe all things whatsoever Christ hath commanded; and this is taken notice of in the marginal reading of our Bibles; which supposes that the word may be rendered, make disciples of all nations: But, I cannot think this sense of the word so defensible, or agreeable to the design of our Saviour, as that of our translation, viz. Go teach all nations; which agrees with the words of the other evangelist, Go preach the gospel to every creature: And besides, while we have recourse to this sense to defend infant-baptism, we do not rightly consider that this cannot be well applied to adult-baptism, which the apostles were first to practise; for it cannot be said concerning the heathen, that they are first to be taken under Christ’s care by baptism, and then instructed in the doctrines of the gospel, by his ministers[70].[71]

Moreover, a profession of faith in those who are baptized when adult, is agreeable to the practice of the Christian church in the first planting thereof: Thus it is said, in Acts ii. 41. They that gladly received the word were baptized: And this might also be observed in the account we have of the jailor and the Eunuch’s being first converted, and then baptized, in Acts xvi. 31-33. chap. viii. 37, 38. But, if it be retorted upon us, as though we were giving up the cause of infant-baptism, it must be observed, that this does not, in the least, affect it; for when our Saviour gave forth his commission to the apostles, to teach or preach the gospel to all nations, and baptize them, it is to be supposed, that their ministry was to be exercised among the adult, and that these then were utter strangers to Christ and his gospel; therefore it would have been a preposterous thing to put them upon devoting themselves to him, before they were persuaded to believe in him: neither could they devote their children till they had first dedicated themselves to him, and this leads us to consider,

III. The right of infants to baptism, provided they, who are required to dedicate them to God therein, are believers; and particularly, that such may be baptized who descend from parents of whom only one is a believer. This will appear,

1. If we consider baptism as an ordinance of dedication: Accordingly, let it be observed,

(1.) That it is the indispensible duty of believers, to devote themselves and all they have, to God, which is founded in the law of nature, and is the result of God’s right to us and ours. Whatever we have received from him, is to be surrendered or given up to him; whereby we own him to be the proprietor of all things, and our dependence upon him for them, and that they are to be improved to his glory. This is, in a particular manner, to be applied to our infant-seed, whom it is our duty to devote to the Lord, as we receive them from him: However, there is this difference between the dedication of persons, from that of things, to God, that we are to devote them to him, in hope of their obtaining the blessings which they are capable of, at present, or shall stand in need of from him, hereafter. This, I think, is allowed, by all Christians. Nothing is more common, than for some who cannot see that it is their duty to baptize their children, to dedicate or devote them to God, by faith and prayer; which they do in a very solemn manner; and that with expectation of spiritual blessings, as an encouragement of their faith, so far as they apprehend them capable of receiving them.

(2.) We shall now consider, that baptism, in the general idea thereof, is an ordinance of dedication or consecration of persons to God. If this be not allowed of, I cannot see how it can be performed by faith, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; or how this can be a visible putting on of Christ, as the apostle styles it, Gal. iii. 27.

Object. This proposition would not be denied, if baptism were to be considered as an ordinance of self-dedication, but then it would effectually overthrow the doctrine of infant-baptism; for since infants cannot devote themselves to God in this ordinance, therefore it is not to be applied to them.

Answ. To this it may be replied, that as there is no other medium, which, I apprehend, can be made use of to prove that the solemn acts of consecration or dedication to God in baptism, is to be made only by ourselves, but what is taken from a supposition of the matter in controversy, by those who assert that infants are not to be baptized: So if this method of reasoning be allowed of, we might as well say, on the other hand; infants are to be baptized; therefore baptism is not an ordinance of self-dedication, since they cannot devote themselves to God; and that would militate against what, I think, is allowed of by all, that baptism, when applied to the adult, is an ordinance of self-dedication. That which I would therefore more directly assert, in answer to this objection is, that baptism is an ordinance of dedication, either of ourselves, or others; provided the person who dedicates, has a right to that which he devotes to God, and can do it by faith. When I do, as it were, pass over my right to another, there is nothing required in order hereunto, but that I can lawfully do it, considering it as my property; and this is no less to be doubted concerning the infant-seed of believers than I can question, whether an adult person has a right to himself, when he gives up himself to God in this ordinance.[72]

(3.) It follows, from the last head, that parents, who have a right to 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.

Here I cannot but take notice of the method which the learned Dr. Lightfoot takes to account for the silence of scripture, as to this matter[78], which is, for substance, as follows, viz. that baptism was well enough known to the Jews, as practised by them under the ceremonial law; by which he means the ordinance in general, as including in it a consecration to God, to worship him in that way which he then instituted; and accordingly they are said to have been baptized into Moses. He also adds, that the apostle speaking concerning this matter, as referring to what was done in the cloud, and the sea, 1 Cor. x. 2. supposes that the whole congregation, of which the infants which they had in their arms, were a part, were solemnly devoted to God at that time; which, I cannot but conclude to be more agreeable to the sense of the word baptize, than that which some critics give, who suppose that nothing is intended by it, but their being wet, or sprinkled with the water of the sea, as they passed through it; for that was only an occasional baptism, which could not be well avoided. But, if I may be allowed a little to alter or improve on his method of reasoning, I rather think, that the apostle’s meaning is, that the whole congregation was baptized into Moses, soon after they were delivered from the Egyptians, while they were encamped at the sea-shore; at which time, God, for their security, spread a cloud for a covering to them; and then, as the kind hand of Providence had led the way, and brought them under a renewed engagement, they hereupon expressed their gratitude and obligation to be God’s people, by this universal dedication to him in baptism. But to return to the author but now mentioned; he adds, that when Jacob was delivered from Laban, and set about the work of reforming his household, he ordered them, not only to put away the strange gods that were among them, but to be clean, Gen. xxxv. 2. by which, as he observes, the Jews confess, that baptism, or a dedication to God by washing, is intended. He also observes, that the ordinance of baptism in general, before Christ instituted gospel-baptism, was so well known by the Jewish church, that they no sooner heard that John baptized, but they came to his baptism; and they did not ask him, why dost thou make use of this rite of baptizing? but, what is thy warrant, or, who sent thee to baptize? He further adds, that both John and Christ took up baptism as they found it in the Jewish church; by which he means the ordinance in general, without regard to some circumstances, in which Christ’s baptism differed from that which was practised under the ceremonial law; and this was, as he observes, applied by the Jewish church to infants as well as grown persons; therefore, our Saviour had no occasion, (when he instituted this ordinance with those circumstances, agreeable to the gospel-state, in which it differs from the baptism which was before practised,) to command them to baptize all nations, that is, all who were the subjects of baptism, and infants in particular.

Obj. 3. It is further objected, that our Saviour was not baptized in his infancy; therefore his example is to be followed, and, consequently, no one is to be baptized till he be adult.

Answ. To this it may be replied, that every circumstance or action in the life of Christ, is not designed to be an example to us; and, indeed, there were some things signified in his baptism, that are not in ours, inasmuch as in its application to him, it did not signify his being cleansed from the guilt and power of sin. The only thing wherein that which was signified in his baptism, agrees with ours, is in that he devoted himself unto God, not as expecting salvation through a Mediator as we do, but as denoting his consent to engage in the work that he came into the world about; which he now began to perform in a public manner, which he fulfilled in the course of his ministry, while he went about doing good. Now it was not convenient that this should be done in his infancy; for though the work of redemption began from that time; yet his proving himself to be the Messiah, especially his doing this in a public manner, did not take place till he was thirty years of age, and then he was baptized, that this might be an ordinance for the faith of his church, that he was engaged in the work of our redemption. Moreover, it must be considered, that John’s baptism, which circumstantially differed from that which was practised in the Jewish church, as well as our Saviour’s, was not instituted till the year before Christ was baptized; therefore he could not be baptized agreeably to the alteration that was made in baptism at this time, had he been baptized in his infancy.

Obj. 4. It is further objected, that infant baptism is a novelty, and not practised by the church in the earliest ages thereof from the apostles’ time.

Answ. To this it may be replied, that if this could be proved to be true, I should regard arguments deduced from scripture-consequences, much more than the sense of antiquity to determine this matter. The principal use of the writings of the Fathers, in my opinion, is to lead us into the knowledge of what relates to the historical account of the affairs of the church in their respective ages. The main thing supposed in this objection is, that infant-baptism was not practised in the early ages of the church; the contrary to which will appear, if we consider some things mentioned by the Fathers concerning this matter: Thus Justin Martyr says, we have not received the carnal but circumcision by spiritual baptism; and all persons are, in like manner, enjoined to receive it, as they were to receive circumcision of old, wherein he refers to that of the apostle, in Coloss. ii. 11, 12. We are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, buried with him in baptism; and, consequently, he supposes that baptism comes in the room of circumcision, as has been observed elsewhere; and he likewise speaks of their being brought to the water, and there regenerated; by which he means, baptized, in the same manner as we are, in the name of the Father, our Lord and Saviour, and the Holy Ghost[79]. And Cyprian, in a council, wherein there were sixty-six bishops convened, delivered it not only as his opinion, but supposes it to have been received by them all, that infants ought to be baptized before the eighth day, in answer to a question under debate, whether the time in which this ordinance was to be performed ought to be the same with that in which children were circumcised under the law[80]. And, Irenæus[81], speaks of Christ’s sanctifying and saving persons of every age, infants not excepted; and therefore they are to be regenerated; by which he means, baptized; as the Fathers often put the thing signified for the sign: And Gregory Nazianzen speaks to the same purpose[82], that baptism may be performed as circumcision was, on the eighth day; but that it ought not to be omitted any longer, than till the children are two, or three years old. And to this I might add, the testimony of Augustin; who asserts, that it had been practised by the church, in foregoing ages, from our Saviour’s time; which, had it not been matter of fact, he would, doubtless, have been disproved by Pelagius, and his other antagonists[83].

It is further objected, by those who deny infant-baptism, that the practice of many in the ancient church, who deferred baptism till they were adult, argues, that they did not think it lawful for any to be baptized in infancy. Thus Constantine the great, as Eusebius observes, was not baptized till a little before his death: And, it is well known, that Gregory Nazianzen, and Chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustin, and others of the Fathers, were not baptized till they came to a state of manhood; and Tertullian, who lived in the second century, exhorts persons to defer baptism, and adds, that it is the safest way to delay the baptism of infants, till they are capable of engaging for themselves, being arrived to years of discretion[84].[85] But to this it may be answered, that particular instances, or the sentiments of some of the Fathers are not sufficient to prove that infant-baptism was not practised by the ancient church. As to what is alleged concerning Constantine’s not being baptized till a little before his death, and Gregory Nazianzen, Chrysostom, &c. not till they were adult: This may be accounted for, by supposing that their parents did not embrace the Christian religion while they were infants: and, if that were true, they ought not to be baptized till they could give up themselves to God by faith: This a late learned writer attempts to prove[86]. Moreover, some who have been converted, have neglected baptism, out of a scruple they have had of their unfitness for it, as many, in our day, do the Lord’s supper; and others, it may he, might have neglected to baptize their infants, or to be baptized themselves, till they apprehended themselves near to death, as being misled by a false supposition, which was imbibed by several, that baptism washed away sin; therefore, the nearer they were to their end, the more prepared they would be, by this ordinance, for a better world. However, whether it was neglected for this, or any other reason, it does not much affect the argument we are maintaining, our design being principally to prove, that it was practised in the early ages of the church; and, in what instances soever it was omitted, it was not because they denied that the infants of believing parents had a right to it. As to several things mentioned by the authors before cited, and others that treat on that subject, whereby they seem to maintain the absolute necessity thereof, to wash away the pollution of sin; or, when they assert, that it is as necessary to salvation as regenerating grace, we have nothing to say as to this method of reasoning: However, whatever they speak in defence of it, is a sufficient evidence that it is not a practice of late invention.

As to what respects Tertullian’s advice to defer baptism till persons were capable to engage for themselves; this caution argues, that it was practised by some, which is the principal thing designed to be proved. And the reason assigned by him for the neglect of baptism, being this, because the sureties, who undertook to instruct them in the doctrines of religion, often promised more than they made conscience of performing, and so brought themselves into a snare thereby; therefore, for their sakes, infant-baptism, which could not be administered without sureties, had better be delayed; this only proves that he was against infant-baptism for some prudential reasons, as it was attended with this inconvenience, not that he thought it was in itself unlawful to be practised by them. From hence we may conclude, that the objection taken from infant-baptism, being supposed to be a novelty, does not weaken the cause we are maintaining[87]. Thus concerning the subjects of baptism.

We are now to consider the mode thereof, or what we are to understand by the word baptism. It is said, in the foregoing answer, to be the washing with water, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. There has been a great dispute in the world, concerning the meaning of the word βαπτιζω, by which this ordinance is expressed; from whence arises the different mode of the administration thereof. Some think, that it only signifies the putting a person, or thing, into the water, whereby it is covered, or, as it were, buried in it; which is otherwise expressed by the word dipping. Others (whose opinion I cannot but acquiesce in) conclude that it may as well be performed by the application of water, though it be in a different manner, either by pouring or sprinkling; and accordingly, that it signifies the using the means of cleansing by the application of water, whatever be the form or mode thereof. This argument depends very much upon the sense in which the word is applied to the action intended thereby, either in scripture or other writers. And, inasmuch as the sense thereof, as used in scripture, and other writings, is well explained by the learned and judicious Dr. Owen, agreeably to the sense we have given of the word; I have no occasion to make any other critical remarks upon it, by referring to those writings in which the word is found[88].

But, since the greatest number of christians are not so well versed in the Greek language, as to be able to judge whether those methods of reasoning that are taken from the use of the word which we render baptize, are sufficiently conclusive: And, when it is asserted, that many who are undoubtedly very good masters of the Greek tongue, have determined that it signifies all manner of washing with water, as well as dipping into it, this will be reckoned, by them, a very fruitless and unprofitable subject; however, we are obliged to mention it, because great stress is usually laid on the sense of this word, to establish that mode of baptism which is always used by those who are on the other side of the question.

I shall take leave to add, to what that learned author, but now quoted, refers to, has observed on this subject; that it does not appear to me that the word Βαπτιζω always signifies to wash, by dipping into water, but by the application of water some other way; because it is sometimes applied to those things which were too large and cumbersome, and therefore could not well be cleansed that way. Thus it is said, in Mark vii. 4. that the Pharisees not only held the washing, or, as it is in the Greek, the baptism of cups and pots, and brazen vessels, which might, indeed, be washed by immersion, but of tables, or, as it may be rendered, of beds, or those seats on which the Jews, according to the custom of the eastern nations, lay at their ease, when they eat their meals. These, I conceive were washed some other way, different from that of dipping or plunging in water; And if it was possible that they might be washed that way, yet the word may be applied to innumerable things, that cannot be baptized by immersion: Therefore, the general sense that we have given of it, that it signifies to wash, whether by dipping into the water, or by the application of water to the thing washed, may justify our practice, with respect to the mode of baptism, commonly used by us.

Object. 1. It is objected hereunto, that the mode used by us, is not properly baptism, but rantism; or, that to sprinkle, or pour, is not to baptize.

Answ. To this it may be replied, that this method of begging the question in controversy, is never reckoned a fair way of arguing. If baptism be a using the means of cleansing, by the application of water, which is the thing we contend for, then the word baptize may as well be applied to it as to any other mode of washing. That which may be further replied to this objection is, that if the thing signified by the action of baptizing, namely, the blood of Jesus, together with those gifts and graces of the Spirit, which are applied to those to whom God makes this a saving ordinance, be sometimes set forth by sprinkling or pouring clean water upon a person, then it cannot be well concluded, that sprinkling, or pouring, is not baptizing, though it differ very much from that which they who contend with us about this matter generally call baptizing. That sprinkling or pouring, is sometimes used in scripture, to signify the conferring of those spiritual gifts and graces which are signified in baptism, is very evident; inasmuch as it is said in John i. 17. The blood of Jesus Christ his Son, cleanseth us from all sin; and this is called the blood of sprinkling, in Heb. xii. 24. 1 Pet. i. 2. Therefore, in a spiritual sense, sprinkling is called cleansing from sin; and the graces of the Spirit conferred in regeneration, are represented in Ezek. xxxvi. 25-27. by sprinkling clean water; which mode of speaking would never be used, were not sprinkling a means of cleansing. And, some think, that the apostle when he speaks of our drawing near to God, having our bodies washed with pure water, Heb. x. 22, intends the ordinance of baptism; yet it alludes to the ceremonial cleansings that were under the law, which were often done by sprinkling: Therefore we cannot but assert, that sprinkling water in baptism, is as much cleansing as any other mode used therein.

Moreover, sometimes the thing signified in baptism, is represented by a metaphor taken from pouring; which, if our mode of baptizing be just, will not seem disagreeable to it; and, it may be, the explication is taken from it, as the conferring the Holy Ghost, which they who were baptized were given to expect, is often called pouring out the Spirit, Acts ii. 17, 18. chap. viii. 38.

Obj. There is another objection which is concluded by many, to be unanswerable, viz. that when we read of baptism in the New Testament, the person baptized is said to go down into the water. Thus the Eunich did, chap. viii. 38. and immediately after this, he is said to come up out of the water; which can be applied, as is supposed, to no other mode of baptism but that of immersion.

Answ. To this it may be replied, that the whole strength of this objection depends upon the sense that is given of the Greek particles, which we often render into, and out of[90]. But this will have no weight with any but those who are unacquainted with the Greek language, since it is so well known to all that understand it, that the former of these particles often signifies to, as well as into; and the latter from, as well as out of; as innumerable instances might easily be given, was it needful, from scripture, and other Greek authors, in which the words are applied to those things, that according to the natural signification thereof, cannot be understood as denoting into, or out of. There is one scripture which no one can suppose is to be taken in any other sense but what is agreeable to our present purpose, viz. Mat. xvii. 27. wherein our Saviour bids Peter Go to the sea[91], and cast an hook, and take the fish that first cometh thence, &c. where, by go to the sea, we can understand nothing else, but go to the sea-shore; and yet the word is the same with that which is, in some other places, rendered into. There are other scriptures in which persons are said to go to the mountain, or some other places, wherein it would be very improper to say, that they went into the place; though the word be the same with that which in other instances we render into. And the word[92] which is sometimes rendered out of, is frequently rendered from, and can be understood in no other sense: As when it is said, in Luke xi. 31. The queen of the south came from the utmost parts of the earth, to hear the wisdom of Solomon; which cannot be understood of her coming out of, but from thence. But, this matter being so well known to all that read the New Testament in the original, it is needless for me to give any other instances.[93]

As to what concerns the Eunuch’s going into the water, I cannot think any thing else is intended by it, but that he descended or lighted down from his chariot, to the water, that is, by a metonymy, to the water-side, in order to his being baptized by Philip. It is no uncommon mode of speaking, to say, that a person goes down to the river-side, to take water, or to the well, to draw it; therefore, this is no strain on the sense of the word; and I am the rather inclined to give into this opinion, because some modern travellers, taking notice of the place where this was done, intimate, that it was only a spring of water; and therefore without sufficient depth to plunge the body in: And some ancient writers, who lived between three and four hundred years after our Saviour’s time, as Jerom and Eusebius, intimate the same thing. If it be said, that these may be mistaken as to the place, inasmuch as the particular spot of ground in which this water was, is not mentioned in scripture: I will not lay much stress upon it; however, I cannot but observe, that it is represented by a diminutive expression, as it is said, they came to a certain water, that is, probably, a brook, which was by the way-side; not a river, or a great collection of water. And it is further observed, that Philip, as well as the Eunuch, went down into the water; though none suppose that he was plunged in the water; therefore it does not certainly appear, from the sense of the word, that the Eunuch was, unless the matter in controversy be taken for granted, that baptism can be performed in no other way, but by plunging.

Moreover, to go down to the water, does not always signify in other scriptures, going down to the bottom of the water; as when the Psalmist, in Psal. cvii. 23. speaks of them that go down to the sea in ships, he does not mean them that go down to the bottom of it; therefore, going down to the water does not always signify being plunged in it. As for what is said concerning Philip and the eunuch’s coming up out of the water, it may very fairly be understood of their returning from the water-side, and the eunuch’s going up again into his chariot. Moreover, I cannot but think, that in this, and all other places, where persons are said to come up out of the water, it denotes an action performed with design, and the perfect exercise of the understanding in him that does it; which seems not agreeable to one who is at the bottom of the water, and cannot well come up from thence, unless by the help of him that baptized him. The sense of the words, coming out of the water, is agreeable to what is said concerning our Saviour at his baptism, in Matt. iii. 16. Jesus went up straightway out of the water; which seems to be a mistake in our translation; where the words απὸ τοῦ ὑδαλος, have been rendered, from the water; which is of the same import with the sense of the Greek particle ἐκ when a person is said to come up out of the water.

Obj. 3. It seems very evident, that John the Baptist used no other mode but that of immersion; because he chose those places to exercise this part of his ministry in, that were well supplied with water, sufficient for this purpose. Accordingly, we first read of his removing from the wilderness of Judea, in which he preached the doctrine of repentance; and told the people, that the kingdom of heaven, that is, the gospel-state, which was to begin with the appearing of the Messiah, was at hand; and then we read of his removing to the banks of the river Jordan, for the conveniency of baptizing those who came to him for that purpose: And, after that, we read of another station in which he resided, viz. Enon, near to Salim; and this reason is assigned; because there was much water there, John iii. 23. Now, if he had baptized by sprinkling, or pouring a little water on the face, he had no need to remove out of the wilderness of Judea: For, whatever scarcity of water there might be there, it was no difficult matter for him to be supplied with enough to serve his occasion, had this been his mode of baptizing.

Answ. To this it may be replied, that though John removed to Jordan and Ænon, that he might be well supplied with water, as he daily wanted large quantities thereof; yet it doth not necessarily follow from hence, that this was done for the sake of immersion therein: And it doth not sufficiently appear to me, that Ænon afforded water deep enough for a person to be baptized in it after this manner; for it seems to be but a small tract of land, in which it is hardly probable, that there were many lakes, or rivers of water contained; which is as much as can be said concerning a well watered country. Therefore, I think, the words[94] ought to have been rendered many waters; by which we are to understand, as Dr. Lightfoot observes, that it was a place of springs[95], or small brooks of water. This place John chose, that he might be supplied with water for his use; but it doth not, I think, necessarily, follow from hence, that he baptized by immersion; Besides, if there had been a great collection of waters there, there would have been some indications thereof at this day; which, I believe, it would be hard to prove that there are.

As to the other part of the objection, that it was a very easy matter 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,

A most explicit ratification of it, with superadded favours, Gen. xii. 3.—In thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. And I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee in their generations, for an everlasting covenant; To be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee. ver. 10. This is my covenant which ye shall keep between me and you, and thy seed after thee: every man-child among you shall be circumcised, ver. 12. He that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man-child in your generations; he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. ver. 24-27. And Abraham was ninety years old and nine, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. In the self-same day was Abraham circumcised, and Ishmael his son. And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him. Hence we learn,

The nature and extent of the Abrahamic covenant or promise. Whatever blessings are promised to ruined man, must be in virtue of the covenant of grace. All promised blessings, therefore, must imply an exhibition of gospel grace. And the glad tidings of salvation through Christ preached to the gentile world, is expressly called—The blessing of Abraham (Gal. iii. 14.) Not that this link is the first in the chain of exhibited mercy to the fallen race in general, or with an universal and unlimited aspect, if the reasoning in the last sections be just: but for its explicitness, and precious (because expressly diffusive) intendment, it may be justly termed a golden link. In this respect Abraham may well be styled—The Father of us all; not to the disavowal of Noah, with whom the covenant was before ratified, or Eve, who received the first intimation of it, and who in this respect eminently may be called—The mother of all living. The covenant of grace, in its external manifestation, containing an exhibition of exceeding great and precious promises to every human being on the face of the globe, to whom providence directs the joyful news, may be compared to a flowing stream: it proceeds ultimately from the immense ocean of sovereign grace in Christ; its first visible source we trace to paradise, where it rises in a small spring, and glides on to Noah. During this part of its progress, there were but few comparatively who participated of its cleansing and healing virtues, though none were debarred from it. This continuing to glide along, without interruption, (notwithstanding God’s awful visitation of a corrupt world by the deluge) we discern through the person of Noah another source, whence is poured forth a second stream which empties itself into the former channel. The streams thus united become a river, which flows on to Abraham—a river to which all are invited, but few come, and these made willing by the omnipotent energy of divine influence which observes the laws of another—a hidden dispensation, running parallel as it were with the former; which was also the case in the preceding period. Then, through the highly honoured person of Abraham we behold another mighty spring copiously pouring forth the waters of salvation, and again uniting itself to the former river; and from him to Christ, with a wide majestic flow, it proceeds along the consecrated channel of the Jewish nation; gradually increasing by the accession of other streams, till it arrives at the Saviour’s finished work; where, impatient of confinement, it breaks over its banks on every side, and the healing waters flow to the most distant regions—That the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles. (Gal. iii. 14, 8. compared with Gen. xii. 3. xviii. 18. xxii. 18.) Paul expressly says, that “the Gospel” (even the very same as the New Testament contains—salvation by Grace) “was preached to Abraham:” And (Heb. iv. 2.) it was preached to his unbelieving descendants in the wilderness.

As it is natural to expect, that whatever exhibition of privileges the parents enjoyed should be extended to their children, in common with themselves; so we find that in fact they are expressly included in this dispensation as well as the preceding. The covenant is established between God and Abraham’s seed, in the very same sense as with Abraham himself; the essence of which is—to be a God to him and his seed. And lest it should be objected that the term seed refers to his adult posterity who should tread in his steps, to the exclusion of infants, all doubt is dissipated by the appointment of applying the seal of the covenant in early infancy.

Sacrifices continuing in full force to seal the covenant, till the divine oblation should be made; and the bow of the covenant continuing as a token and seal of it, until the Messiah’s second coming; at the commencement of this period is given an additional seal—circumcision. The very nature of the rite shews that all females are excluded from being the subjects of it; as well as the discriminating specification—every man-child. Here observe in general, that children, in this rite, have the same privileges as their parents. The males are treated as Abraham, and the females as Sarah: These therefore, had the covenant sealed in the same manner as their honoured mother. Again: though Sarah and her sex were not the subjects of this rite, they were constant witnesses to the institution; and therefore there was an important sense in which circumcision was a seal to Sarah and her daughters; a sense analagous to that in which sacrifices were.

Every domestic head being, in truth, a prophet, priest, and king, in his own family; a question must arise, Whether the covenant and its seals are restricted to the parent head of the family, and his children, or else extended to the other domestics? Nor would the question be unimportant; for his instructions, his prayers, and commands, answerable to his three-fold office, must be directed accordingly. To this question right reason replies: If the covenant and its seals are beneficial to all capable subjects, benevolence requires that they should be extended to the other non-dissenting members—except forbidden by indisputable authority. This is the voice of reason; and we find that this is the voice of God. The privilege is common to the seed, and to him that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of the seed, Gen. xvii. 12.

It has been objected, “that the covenant with Abraham was a covenant of peculiarity only, and that circumcision was no more than a token of that covenant;” but if so, as Mr. Henry observes, “how came it that all proselytes, of what nation soever, even the strangers, were to be circumcised; though not being of any of the tribes, they had no part or lot in the land of Canaan? The extending the seal of circumcision to proselyted strangers, and to their seed, was a plain indication, that the New Testament administration of the covenant of grace would reach, not to the covenanters only, but their seed.” But it has been proved that circumcision sealed to Abraham and his seed the righteousness of faith; and therefore it does not affect the point in debate to contend that temporal promises were sealed also.

We next appeal to the long and interesting period from Moses to Christ, On which let the following observations be considered.

Whatever appertained to the Abrahamic covenant was not disannulled by the Mosaic dispensation. This St. Paul asserts in plain terms, Gal. iii. 17.

It may not be amiss to take notice, before we proceed, of Job’s family; who, being as is generally supposed, cotemporary with Moses, and unconnected with his history, deserves a previous regard. Of him it is said, that “he sanctified his children, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt-offerings, according to the number of them all—Thus did Job continually,” or, all the days. (Job i. 5.) On this I would only observe, let the sanctifying be what it may, the sacrifices must have been of divine institution; and used by Job, being an eminently righteous man, as the seals of the covenant of grace; with respect to his children separately.

Superadded to the foregoing seals of the covenant, is the passover; a divine rite of the nature of a sacrifice, instituted in memory of Israel’s deliverance out of Egypt, representing and sealing spiritual blessings. “As to the guests, says Witsius, they were, first, all native Israelites, who were not excluded by legal uncleanness. For all the congregation of Israel is commanded to solemnize the passover. And, next, the Proselytes circumcised and become Jews; whether bondmen born in the house or bought with money, &c. Exod. xii. 48. When a stranger will sojourn with thee, and keep the passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it, and he shall be as one that is born in the land.” On this passage in Exodus, Dr. Jennings observes these two things; “First, That when a man thus became a Proselyte, all his males were to be circumcised as well as himself, whereby his children were admitted into the visible church of God, in his right, as their father. Secondly, That upon this, he should be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the Jewish church and nation as well as be subject to the whole law: He should be as one born in the land.” In short; not only men and women, but also young children partook of this ordinance, as soon as they were capable of answering the revealed design of it, for—no positive rule was given them on this head, like that of circumcision. It is manifest that since the injunction respected not only individuals of such a description, but also families as such, every member without exception had a legal right to the ordinance; and nothing prevented infants from a participation, but what lay in the natural incapacity to answer the design of it.

“Besides the ordinary and universal sacraments of circumcision and the passover, some extraordinary symbols of divine grace were granted to the Israelites in the wilderness, which in the New Testament are applied to Christ and his benefits, and said to have the same signification with our sacraments. And they are in order these—The passage in the cloud through the Red Sea—the manna which was rained from heaven—The water issuing out of the rock—and the brazen serpent erected by Moses for the cure of the Israelites.” To this we may add, among other things, with the author now referred to—the clear and familiar display of the divine majesty—and the adumbration of divine mysteries daily sealed by religious ceremonies. Our subject does not call for an investigation of these particulars, but I would remark in general, that the principle for which we contend, is so far from being weakened, that it is abundantly corroborated by the inspired testimony of every dispensation, and the Mosaic in particular—That it is a common dictate of right reason, children should from their earliest infancy share in their parents’ privileges, as far as they are capable, when no positive authority contravenes it.

From the preceding induction of sacred evidence in favour of children being sharers of the seals of grace in common with their parents, we conclude, that for the space of four thousand years, that is to say, from the creation to Christ, it was a rule universally incumbent on parents to treat their children as entitled to religious privileges equally with themselves, according to their capacity.—And as a counterpart of what was observed of privileges, we may remark that, in virtue of the same uniform principle, often when the parents were punished with excommunication or death, their infant children were included with them. As might be instanced in—the deluge—the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah—the case of Achan the Son of Zerah (Josh. vii. 24.)—the matter of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram—the case of the conquered nations (Deut. xx. 16, 17.)—and many more instances, down to the destruction of Jerusalem. Far be it from us to suppose, that the parents’ crimes and impenitence made their suffering children incapable of mercy—that mercy which proceeds on an invisible plan, and belongs to a purely spiritual dispensation. Yet, that children, during their dependence on their parents, should share equally with them in judgment and mercies externally, is the effect of an all-wise constitution coeval with mankind.

DR. WILLIAMS ON BAPTISM.

Footnote 74:

Tertullian observes on this passage, that if either parent were christians,, the children were enrolled in Jesus Christ by early baptism. And it fairly implies infant baptism in the days of Paul. For, having declared that the unbelieving partner was not to be divorced according to the law of Moses, which held the heathen to be unclean; he pronounces the unbelievers set apart by such marriage to God, as far as regarded that marriage; and in proof of this he refers to a fact as known to the Corinthians, namely that the children of such marriages were received into the church, and treated as holy, that is devoted to God. Now if the children of such marriages were not treated as heathens, but owned by the church, and this could be in no other way than by receiving them by baptism, there can be no doubt, that this was the case when both parents were believers.—Ακαθαρτος & αλιος never mean illegitimate and legitimate; and if they did, this would be no proof that the unbelieving party was consecrated to God, so as that the children should be clean and devoted to him.

Footnote 75:

All these scriptures which require faith, that is, the credible profession of it, to precede baptism, are certainly directed only to those who are at years capable of it, and not to infants. These scriptures do not exclude infants whose claim is through the church-membership of their parents, by which they are not “unclean,” 1 Cor. vii. 14. but holy, entitled to the promises made to the seed of Abraham; and also by virtue of the commission to disciple all nations, of which they are a part as much as their believing parents; and by the practical exposition of that commission in the universal baptism of infants in the christian churches for the first four hundred years.

Footnote 76:

It may be objected, “If the preceding account be true, that baptism is not an institution merely positive, as much so as any enacted under the Mosaic dispensation; then the present economy hath no institutions at all of that kind.” This objection supposes,

1. That precepts of a positive nature under the Mosaic dispensation, were absolutely so in all their circumstances; so as not to leave any thing to be inferred by the person or persons concerned, in the discharge of the duty enjoined.—But if these things were so, if the Jewish ritual was so express as to leave nothing to be determined by inference, one might well wonder whence could spring so many Targums and Talmuds, so many voluminous works intended to explain and illustrate the various circumstances attending the performance of these positive duties among others. Are not these unprescribed circumstances of ritual worship, and other positive injunctions, what in a great degree swell the interpretations of the Rabbins?—The truth is, that there were many precepts under the Jewish economy positive in a considerable degree, relative to the subject as well as the mode of an institute, and respecting the former, it was sometimes particularly scrupulous, for reasons already assigned; but it does not follow that ANY ONE of these were so strictly positive, as not to take some things for granted respecting the circumstances of the duty, such as national custom, the common dictates of sense and reason, traditionary knowledge, the general principles of the law of nature, &c. And it should not be forgotten, that the administrator of the Jewish rites had the subjects distinguished and characterized in a sensible manner, which qualification was to be determined by the same sort of evidence as any facts in common life; but the administrator of the Christian rites has no such grounds to proceed on; his commission is of a discretionary nature, arising from the nature and design of the institutions themselves, as before shewn.

2. The objection again supposes, that there is some excellency in an institution being merely and absolutely positive, more than in one of a mixed nature. But this supposition is vain and erroneous. For what conceivable superior excellency can there be in any precept or duty on account of its positiveness? Were there any force in the objection, it would imply that the Christian dispensation is less excellent than the Mosaic; as having fewer positive rites, and their proportion of positiveness being also smaller. And it would also imply, that the reasonable duties of prayer and praise, as founded on the law of nature, as well as more fully enjoined by revelation, were less excellent than baptism and the Lord’s supper; and it would follow, that the services of the church triumphant are in their own nature less excellent than those of the church militant; which are consequences from the force of the objection equally genuine and absurd. Our Lord’s answer respecting the first and great commandment, shews at once that what is the most important duty, is also the most natural, and therefore the most remote from what is merely positive; and that is the love of God. This matter has been fully shewn before. In one word, the spirit of the objection is truly pharisaic.

Some may perhaps object, “that this has been always admitted as true, that baptism and the Lord’s supper are positive institutions of the New Testament; and that many pædobaptists have availed themselves of this fort, in ascertaining the nature and enforcing the obligation of the latter, and particularly bishop Hoadly. And as his lordship’s principle, in his Plain Account of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, has been deemed unanswerable, Mr. Foot, Dr. Stennett, and others, have taken but the same method in treating about baptism.” To this I reply,

That, as principles taken upon trust, dignified titles, and lawn sleeves, are light as a feather in the scale of argument; so, on the other hand, I am satisfied the bishop of Winchester’s positions, taken in a sound sense, nay, the only consistent sense in which they can be taken, are evidently true and important. The sum is this; that all positive duties, or duties made such by institution alone, depend entirely upon the will and declaration of the person who institutes or ordains them, with respect to the real design and end of them, and consequently, to the due manner of performing them. This is strictly true, in the degree that any duties are positive, but no further. And to denominate a precept or duty positive, though but partially so, I have no objection, for the sake of distinguishing them from such as are merely moral, and evidently founded on the reason and nature of things. “Except we observe this caution,” as bishop Butler observes, “we shall be in danger of running into endless confusion.”

It may be said, “If we resign this maxim, that a positive precept or duty excludes all moral reasoning, analogy and inference, we open a door to numberless innovations, and deprive ourselves of a necessary barrier against the encroachments of popery, &c.” In reply to this specious objection let it be observed,

1. That this maxim, whatever confidence our opponents place in it, is a very insufficient barrier for the defence of truth, if the objection implies, that it is calculated to defend truth against error, and not error against truth as well. For it is notorious, that there is hardly any extravagance, in the whole compass of the distinguishing peculiarities of religious practice, that is not barricadoed by this very maxim. If Protestants use it against Papists, Papists in their turn use it against Protestants. If the Quakers are pursued and foiled when they occasionally quit this fort, they soon rally their controversial forces, and, entrenching themselves behind the strength of this maxim, become again victorious. Whence passive obedience and non-resistance? Whence an opposition to all forensic swearing, in common with profane? Whence the Quakers’ nonconformity to what other serious Christians consider as lawful? Their peculiar mode of salutation and address? Their method of conducting religious worship? The little stress they lay on the observance of the christian Sabbath? &c. Whence the popish absurd figment of transubstantiation, apostolical succession, extreme unction? &c.—On the contrary,

2. Not to distinguish between the positiveness and morality of a precept, ordinance or duty, and not to ascertain their respective degrees; and to deny that the latter distinction admits of moral reasoning, inference and analogy, open a wide door to bigotry, and numberless glaring abuses of the sacred oracles. By rejecting the analogy of faith and the design of scripture herein, we give the most effectual encouragement to every senseless intrusion. And what is still more remarkable is, that the more firmly any one adheres to the undistinguishing positive scheme, in reference to any christian ordinance whatever, the more closely will he be allied to the interest of genuine bigotry. For it has a direct tendency to make the unprescribed circumstances of a positive rite, essential to the rite itself, and consequently to make that necessary and essential which the institutor has not made so. How far this is applicable to the antipædobaptist’s cause, will be further considered.—The doctrine that teaches the propriety of yielding our reason to positive institutions as such, or in the degree they are so, is just and proper, as founded on the sovereign, absolute and manifest authority of the Supreme Legislator; and in this view it has been of singular service in refuting the cavils of deistical impiety. But to carry the principle any further, tends to betray the cause of christianity into the hands of infidels, and to breed unhallowed party zeal and uncharitable animosities among its sincerest professors. “For who are most likely to put weapons into the hands of infidels; they, who seem to discard reason in the investigation of truth, or they, whose researches are founded on her most vigorous exertions, and most rational decisions?—They, who make scripture bow to their preconceived notions, in direct opposition to the dictates of reason and common sense, or they, whose arguments are founded on a coalition of scripture and right reason?” Once more,

3. The objection, as it includes Mr. B.’s favourite maxim, and tends to oppose the distinction above stated, involves a great inconsistence with itself. For on what principle, except what they affect to discard, do our opponents retain some of the positive rites of the New Testament and reject others? Why regard baptism and the eucharist as of standing obligation; while the pedilavium and feasts of charity (the former enjoined expressly by our Lord, and both practised by the disciples of the apostolic age, see John xiii. 14, 15. 1 Tim. v. 10. Jude 12.) are judged unworthy of continuance? Why receive females to communion, or adopt the first day of the week for the christian sabbath? How can they justify their conduct in these matters, these circumstances of positive institutions, without undermining their own avowed hypothesis? With regard to the sabbath, indeed, the antipædobaptists are divided among themselves; while some are content with the first day of the week, others observe the seventh. On this point Dr. S. is very open and ingenious; Mr. Addington appeals to an objecting antipædobaptist, “whether he does not think himself sufficiently authorized to keep the christian sabbath, though Christ has no where said in so many words, Remember the first day of the week to keep it holy?” To this the Dr. replies, “There is, I acknowledge, some weight in this objection: and all I can say to it is, that not having yet met with any passage in the New Testament that appears to me to have repealed the fourth commandment, and to have required the observation of the first day, I cannot think myself sufficiently authorized to renounce that, and to keep this.” If the doctor is professedly an observer of the Jewish sabbath, he is consistent with himself, however different from so great a part of the christian world; if not, he and his tenet are at variance: analogy and inferential reasoning have got the better of the positive system, which nevertheless must not be resigned, for fear of worse consequences.

Another objection much insisted on is, “If our Lord has left any thing to be inferred relative to the subject and mode of baptism, being a positive institute; or if he has not delivered himself expressly and clearly in every thing, respecting the question who are to be baptized, and the manner how; it implies a reflexion on his wisdom and goodness.” But this objection is impertinent on different accounts. For,

1. Its force is derived from the supposition that the Institutor was somehow obliged to make his will known to men by one method only. But is the Great Supreme under any such obligations to his absolutely dependent creatures? What should we say of a philosopher, who, having to judge of any important phenomenon in physics, should quarrel with the author of nature, because he had not confined his method of information to one source only, to the exclusion of all others? That his evidence, for instance, was not confined to the information of sense, to the exclusion of reason and analogy? Or what should we say of a person, who having to decide on the truth and reality of a miracle, should impeach the wisdom and goodness of his Maker, because he did not appeal to one sense only of his dependent and unworthy creatures, that of seeing, for instance, to the exclusion of that of hearing? The answer is plain, and the application easy.

2. The objection is guilty of another impertinence, nearly allied to the former: it unreasonably requires positive evidence for what is discoverable by other means. It is demonstrable, and I think has been demonstrated, that the qualifications of the subjects of baptism (the mode also will be examined in its place) is what cannot possibly be determined by any positive rule whatever as such, but must be resolved to the discretionary nature of the commission, or the supposed wisdom and prudence of the administrators, in common with other parts of the same commission, such as the choice of an audience, the choice of a concionatory subject, &c. Preach the gospel to every creature, is a part of the commission, but the execution has no positive rule. Nor does this commission of preaching the gospel prohibit preaching the law, for a lawful use, or any branch of natural religion, notwithstanding Mr. B.’s excluding standard, that “positive laws imply their negatives.” In like manner, the commission to baptize believers, and the taught, we contend and prove, does not mean to include all sorts of believers and taught persons, but such of them as the administrators judge fit, according to the rules of christian prudence and discretion. And we further insist, as shall be more fully shewn hereafter, that the terms of the commission, believers and taught, stand opposed, not to non-believers and untaught, but to unbelievers and persons perversely ignorant. What, therefore, falls necessarily to the province of inferential reasoning, is impertinently referred to a positive standard.

3. The objection implies an ungrateful reflexion on the Institutor’s wisdom and goodness, contrary to what it pretends to avoid. And this it does, by counteracting and vilifying those natural dictates of reason, prudence and common sense, that our all-wise and beneficent Creator has given us—his goodness, in not suspending their operations, but leaving them in full force, as to these circumstances of positive duties—his wisdom, in grafting what is positive of his laws on these common principles—and finally, the favourable circumstance of his diminishing the degree of positiveness in New Testament institutions, as well as their number.

Let us now recapitulate what has been said in this chapter—From an investigation of the nature of positive precepts and duties, as distinguished from moral ones, together with their comparative obligations and importance, we have seen, that, in any case of supposed competition, the latter claims an undoubted preference. We have also seen, that nothing but absolute, decisive, discernible authority can turn the scale in favor of the former, or, indeed, place any law or duty in the rank of POSITIVE. Moreover, it has been shewn, that every duty resulting from any discernible moral relation, must needs be classed among moral duties; that some things appertaining to the very essence of baptism, on our opponents’ own principles, are of moral consideration; particularly the qualifications of proper subjects; consequently, that baptism is an ordinance of a mixed nature, partly positive and partly moral. Of all which an unavoidable consequence is, that our opponents’ outcry against all moral and analogical reasons in our enquiries respecting the subjects and mode of baptism, is impertinent and absurd, and to a demonstration contradictory to their own avowed principles.

DR. WILLIAMS ON BAPTISM.

Footnote 77:

The commission to disciples baptizing all nations is both a positive and express authority for the baptism of the infants of such as are themselves discipled.

Footnote 78:

See his works: vol. II. pag. 1129, 1132, 1133.

Footnote 79:

Vid. Just. Martyr, Quest. & Resp. Quest. CII. & ejusd. Apol. II.

Footnote 80:

Vid. Cyp. in Epist. ad Fid. Lib. iii. Epi. viii.

Footnote 81:

Vid. Iren. Lib. ii. xxxix.

Footnote 82:

Vid. Ejusd. Orat. xl.

Footnote 83:

Vid. Augustin. de peccat. merit. & remiss. Lib. i. Cap. xxviii. parvulos baptizandos esse concedunt qui contra autoritatem universæ ecclesiæ proculdubio per dominum, & Apostolos traditam venire non possunt; and in Sermon. x. de verbis Apostol, speaking concerning infant-baptism, he says, Nemo vobis susurret doctrinas alienas. Hoc ecclesia semper habuit. semper tenuit; hoc a majorum fide percepit: hoc usque in finem perseveranter custodit.

Footnote 84:

Vid. Tertul. Lib. de Baptism, Cap. xviii.

Footnote 85:

It is very remarkable, that in those ages and countries, where the mode of dipping has been, or still is, the most prevalent, there infant-baptism has been the most generally practised, and there the mode of baptizing has not been deemed essential. Instead, therefore, of finding all these people Baptists, but very few, if any, of that denomination, are to be found among them. Dr. Wall, who was himself an advocate for dipping, tells us, “that all christians in the world, who never owned the pope’s authority, do now, and ever did, dip their infants, in the ordinary use.” They always baptized their infants; and, ordinarily, by dipping, but not universally, for they, occasionally, sprinkled them. The mode of dipping was of ordinary use; but the practice of infant-baptism, in those churches who were never under the influence of popery, appears to have been universal, both in ancient and modern times.

We do not pretend to rest the proof of infants’ right to baptism upon historical evidence, relative to the ancient practice of the church in this respect. However, if it should appear, that the churches, soon after the apostles, did admit the infant children of believing parents to baptism—if no account can be produced, of any church that rejected them—if no individual can be named, who pretended that the practice was unlawful, or an innovation—these facts will certainly furnish a very weighty argument in favour of the aforesaid doctrine.

Baptism is an important transaction of a public nature. Those christians, who lived and wrote in the earliest times after the apostles, must have known what their practice was, with reference to the infant children of believers. The testimony of these ancient writers, as historians or witnesses, respecting this plain matter of fact, justly claims our most impartial and attentive consideration. It is not, however, my intention to write a complete history of infant-baptism. A history of this kind has been written a century ago, by Dr. Wall, a very correct and judicious historian. This history is highly approved and recommended by the best judges, being a work of great merit, candour and impartiality.

On February 9th, 1705, the clergy of England, assembled in general convention, “ordered, that the thanks of this house be given to Mr. Wall, vicar of Shoreham in Kent, for the learned and excellent book he hath lately written concerning infant-baptism; and that a committee be appointed to acquaint him with the same.” Dr. Atterbury, a leading member in said convention, says, “that the history of infant-baptism was a book, for which the author deserved the thanks, not of the English clergy alone, but of all the Christian churches.” Mr. Whiston also, a very learned man, well acquainted with the writings of the Fathers of the four first centuries, and a professed Baptist, in his address to the people of that denomination, declares to them, “that Dr. Wall’s history of infant-baptism, as to facts, appeared to him most accurately done, and might be depended on by the Baptists themselves.” Mem. of his life, part 2, page 461.

The aforesaid history is still extant in two volumes. The same author has since published another volume, which is a defence of the two former volumes, against the reflections of Dr. Gale and others. In these publications, he has favoured us with the testimony and sayings of the ancient Fathers, with respect to infant-baptism, a few of which I shall produce, as authorities on the present occasion.

Justin Martyr, who wrote about forty years after the apostolic age, says, “We have not received the carnal but spiritual circumcision, by baptism. And it is enjoined on all persons to receive it in the same way.” He here evidently considers baptism as being in the place of circumcision, and, consequently, like that ancient rite, designed for infants as well as for adults. In one of his apologies for the christians, he observes, “Several persons among us, of sixty or seventy years old, who were made disciples to Christ from their childhood, do continue uncorrupt.”—Who were made disciples.—Take notice; for he makes use of the very same word that was used in the commission given to the apostles. Disciple all nations, baptizing them, &c. Now, if infant children were made disciples, they were undoubtedly baptized. Justin wrote about 105 years after the ascension of Christ. Those persons whom he mentions were then 70 years old; and consequently born and made disciples, in the times of the apostles.

Irenæus, who wrote about sixty-seven years after the apostles, and was then an aged man, says, concerning Christ, “he came to save all persons who by him are regenerated (or baptized) unto God, infants, little ones, youths and elderly persons.” He speaks of infants and little ones as being regenerated. It is evident from his own words that he had reference to their baptism; for he tells us, “When Christ gave his apostles the command of regenerating unto God, he said, go and teach all nations baptizing them.” The ancient Fathers as customarily used the word regeneration for baptism, as the church of England now use the word christening. Justin Martyr, whose name and testimony we have already mentioned, speaking of some particular persons who had been baptized, says, “they are regenerated in the same way of regeneration, in which we have been regenerated, for they are washed with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” In this short sentence, the word regeneration, or regenerated, is put for baptism no less than three times.

It is a matter of no importance in the present dispute, whether the primitive Fathers used the aforesaid word properly or improperly. We certainly know in what sense they did use it, and this is all the information needed. I would however repeat a former observation, viz. that by a common figure, the thing signified is often substituted for the sign, and the sign for the thing signified. Thus, the Abrahamic covenant is sometimes put, by God himself, for circumcision; and circumcision, the sign and token thereof, is sometimes put for the covenant. Accordingly, baptism has been put for regeneration; and regeneration, for baptism.

We have already shown, that the Jews were in the habit of baptizing the Gentile proselytes, even before the time of John and of Christ. They considered these proselytes as being, by baptism, born the children of Abraham; and therefore expressed their baptism, by regeneration. Accordingly, Christ and his apostles, on some particular occasions, adopted a similar language. Our Saviour said to Nicodemus, except one be born again—except he be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. By this new birth, Christ evidently had reference to water baptism, as truly as to the renewing of the Holy Ghost. The apostle Paul styles baptism, the washing of regeneration. The ancients commonly expressed baptism with water, by regeneration; for they considered this external sacrament as a sign of internal, spiritual renovation and purification, Irenæus expressly calls baptism regeneration, and says that infants were regenerated, that, is baptized. His testimony is plain and full; and cannot be doubted by any person acquainted with the phraseology and writings of the Fathers. He mentions not only old persons and youths, but also little ones, and even infants. This Irenæus was bishop of Lyons in France. According to Mr. Dodwell, he was born before the death of St. John—was brought up in Asia, where that apostle had lived and died. He was acquainted with Polycarp; and in his younger years, had often heard him preach. Polycarp was John’s disciple, had been chosen by him to be bishop of Smyrna—and probably that angel of the church, so highly commended in the 2d chapter of Rev. Irenæus, and those Christians who lived in an age so near the apostles, and in a place where one of them had so lately resided, could not be ignorant—they must have known what the apostolic practice was, with respect to infant-baptism—a matter of the most notorious and public nature.

Dr. Lathrop observes, “that Tertullian, who flourished about one hundred years after the apostles, gives a plain testimony, that the church admitted infants to baptism in his time. It is true, he advises to delay their baptism; not because it was unlawful, for he allows of it in cases of necessity; but because the sponsors were often brought into a snare; and because he imagined that sins, committed after baptism, were next to unpardonable. He accordingly advises that unmarried persons be kept from this ordinance, until they either marry or are confirmed in continence. His advising to a delay, supposes that infant-baptism was practised, for otherwise there would have been no room for the advice. He does not speak of it as an innovation, which he would certainly have done, had it begun to have been practised in his time. His words rather imply the contrary. His speaking of sponsors, who engaged for the education of the infants that were baptized, shows that there had been such a custom. And his asking, ‘why that innocent age made such haste to baptism,’ supposes that infants had usually been baptized, soon after their birth. So that he fully enough witnesses to the fact, that it had been the practice of the church to baptize infants. And his advice to delay their baptism, till they were grown up and married, was one of those odd and singular notions for which this father was very remarkable.”

This quotation agrees well with the account given of Tertullian, by Dr. Wall and other approved writers. Tertullian was evidently a man of abilities and learning, and in some respects an useful writer. His integrity and veracity were never questioned. But as has been hinted, he held to some strange and peculiar notions. He was not deemed perfectly orthodox by the ancient Christians. Being a person of warm imagination, he expressed himself, very strongly, on different subjects, at different times; and some have thought, in a manner that was not consistent. Some of the later Baptists have even pretended that he denied infant-baptism. But these considerations do not disqualify him as a witness in the present case. Instead of invalidating, they serve to confirm his testimony.

Dr. Gill says, that Tertullian is the first man who mentions infant-baptism, and speaks against it; and infers that it had not come into use before his time. To this, Mr. Clark, in his answer, replies, “So he is the first man, I suppose, that mentions the baptism of unmarried people, virgins, and widows, and speaks against it, and as earnestly pleads for its delay till the danger of temptation is past; till marriage, or the abatement of lust. But will it thence follow, that the baptism of such unmarried persons did not obtain in the church till Tertullian’s time? Or that it then first began to be in use? Our author might as reasonably have inferred the latter opinion, as the former. But the very words, in which he expresses his advice against baptizing infants, plainly imply that it was a common practice. After all, what is it that Tertullian has said against infant-baptism? He has given it as his judgment, that it would be more profitable to defer their baptism, until they come to riper years, and were able to understand something of its nature and design; but he does not like the anti-pædobaptists, condemn it as unlawful; which he would have done, if it had been a novel practice—an innovation, contrary to the rule of scripture, or without the approbation or direction of the apostles. On the contrary, he allows it in case of necessity, of sickness, and danger of death. Dr. Gill, instead of saying, that Tertullian was the first man who mentioned infant-baptism, and spoke against it, ought to have said, that he was the only man, in all antiquity, whose writings have come down to us, who has said any thing at all against the practice of baptizing infants.” The very advice, however, which he gave, plainly shows, that infant-baptism was then commonly practised. He does not intimate, that the practice was of human invention, or not authorized by the apostles. His private opinion, with respect to the expediency of delaying baptism in several cases, and the reasons which he offered, are nothing to us. We have only cited him as a voucher to an ancient fact; and the testimony which he has given affords clear and incontestable proof of said fact, viz. that infants were baptized in his times.

Origen, who flourished in the beginning of the third century, and was for some time contemporary with Tertullian, in his 8th homily on Levit. 12, observes, “David, speaking concerning the pollution of infants, says, I was conceived in iniquity, and in sin did my mother bring me forth. Let it be considered what is the reason, that whereas the baptism of the church is given for forgiveness, infants also, by the usage of the church, are baptized; when if there were nothing in infants, which wanted forgiveness and mercy, the grace of baptism would be needless to them. And again, infants are baptized for the remission of sin. Of what sin? Or when have they sinned? Or how can any reason of the laver hold good in their case? But according to that sense before mentioned, none is free from pollution, though his life be only the length of one day upon the earth. It is for this reason that infants are baptized, because by the sacrament of baptism, our pollution is taken away.” In another treatise, he says, “the church had a tradition, or command from the apostles, to give baptism to infants! for they, to whom the divine mysteries were committed, knew that there is, in all persons, the natural pollution of sin, which ought to be washed away by water and the spirit; by reason of which pollution, the body itself is also called the body of sin, &c. &c.”

These testimonies of Origen are full and unequivocal. They put the matter in debate beyond all reasonable doubt, if any credit can be given to them; and no reason appears, why they should not be credited. It is true, they are taken from Latin translations. Origen wrote in the Greek language. But the fidelity of the translators and authenticity of these passages, have been sufficiently vindicated by Dr. Wall, even to the entire satisfaction of all impartial enquirers. None will object, but those persons who are disposed to cavil.

I perceive that you have admitted the aforesaid facts; but have made an unusual outcry against the tradition and order from the apostles, mentioned by Origen. There is, I suspect, more policy and popularity in your remarks, than real weight. It will not do for us to turn those weapons against the ancient Fathers and holy apostles, which the protestants have used with so much success, in their disputes with the Papists.

Let us hear what St. Paul says, with respect to traditions. 2 Thess. ii. 15. “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.” And in the 3d chap. 6th verse, he says, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.” So also in 1 Corin. 11th chap. 2d verse. “Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances (the traditions, paradoseis) as I delivered them to you.” The apostle was here speaking of christian ordinances, which he calls traditions. The original word signifies traditions, and is so rendered by our translators in the other aforecited passages.

Thus, sir, you see in what a solemn manner—in the name of Christ, the holy apostle charged the primitive christians, to hold and keep the traditions—not merely such as had been written by the pen of inspiration, but also those which were delivered to them by word, or in an oral and verbal manner, and with particular reference to the rules and ordinances of the gospel. The traditions and commandments of mere men, which pretend to divine authority, are to be rejected. But those traditions are not to be treated with sneer and ridicule, which were delivered by the apostles to the primitive christians—recorded and authenticated by the ancient Fathers—and transmitted down to us, by the faithful historian.

Origen has expressly informed us, that infant-baptism was practised in his time. With respect to this matter of fact, Origen was certainly a competent witness; and he had every opportunity, and advantage for knowing what had been the practice of his predecessors and even of the apostles. Many of the ancient Fathers were illiterate, and descended from heathen parents; and being the first of their family who embraced christianity, must have been baptized when adults. But Origen was one of the most learned men of the age. He was born and educated at Alexandria in Egypt, but travelled into Rome, and Greece, and Capadocia, and Arabia. He resided for some time in several of the most eminent churches, and spent the greatest part of his life in Syria and Palestine. His ancestors were christians. Eusebius tells us, that his forefathers had been christians, for several generations. His father was martyred, in the persecution under Severus.

It is very remarkable, that his pedigree should have been so accurately ascertained. The occasion was this: Porphyry, a great enemy to christianity, had represented the christians as being an ignorant people, destitute of science; but not being able to conceal the repute of Origen, for his uncommon skill in human literature, pretended that he had been at first a heathen, and had learned their philosophy. In order to confute this falsehood, Eusebius enquired into his ancestry, and set forth his christian descent.

Origen was born in the year of our Lord 185, that is, eighty-five years after the apostles. He was seventeen years old when his father suffered martyrdom. He had himself, undoubtedly, been baptized in his infancy; and must have been informed concerning the practice of the apostles, respecting the baptizing of infants; for his grandfather, or at least his great-grandfather, lived in the apostolic times, and they both were christians. This is the man, who has expressly declared, that infants were baptized in his day, and that the church was directed by an order or tradition from the apostles, to baptize them. His circumstances were such as afforded him all the necessary and suitable means for obtaining information. We have no reason to suspect his credibility as a witness; and nothing can be more unreasonable, than to reject or treat his testimony with contempt. It is a circumstance worthy of our very particular notice, that Origen and the other ancient Fathers do not speak of infant-baptism as being a practice that was denied or opposed by any one. They mention it as a practice generally known and approved, and for the purpose of illustrating and confirming other points that were then disputed.

I shall now produce the testimony of the blessed martyr Cyprian, who was for some time contemporary with Origen; and next to him, the most noted Christian writer of that age. Cyprian was constituted bishop or minister of Carthage, in the year 248, and Origen died in the year 252. The testimony of this ancient saint, to which I now have an immediate reference, was occasioned by a question proposed to him, by one Fidus, a presbyter, or minister in the country, viz. Whether an infant might be baptized before he was eight days old? The reason of his doubt, it seems, was an article in the law respecting circumcision, which, under the Old Testament dispensation, required that infants should be circumcised on the eighth day from their birth. Pursuant to the aforesaid question, an ecclesiastical council of sixty-six bishops, having convened at Carthage, A. D. 253, Cyprian proposed a resolution of the following import, viz. “that an infant might be baptized on the second or third day, or at any time after its birth; and that circumcision, besides being a sacramental rite, had something in it of a typical nature; and particularly, in the circumstance of being administered on the eighth day, which ceased at the coming of Christ, who has given us baptism, the spiritual circumcision; in which ordinance, we are not thus restricted, with respect to the age or time of administration.” To this resolution the council agreed unanimously; as it appears from the testimony of Cyprian in his epistle to Fidus, from which I shall extract a few paragraphs, in order to show the sentiments of those venerable and ancient saints relative to infant-baptism.—The inscription is as follows:

“Cyprian and the rest of the colleagues, who are present in council, in number sixty-six, to Fidus our brother,

“Greeting.

“As to the case of infants, whereas you judge that they must not be baptized within two or three days after they are born; and that the law of the ancient circumcision is to be observed; so that you think none should be baptized and sanctified, until the eighth day after their birth; we were all in our assembly of a quite different opinion. For in this matter, with respect to that which you thought fitting to be done, there was not one of your mind. But all of us rather judged, that the grace and mercy of God is not to be denied to any person born. For whereas our Lord in his gospel, the Son of Man came not to destroy men’s souls (or lives) but to save them.—That the eighth day, appointed to be observed in the Jewish circumcision, was a type going before in a shadow, or resemblance, but on Christ’s coming was fulfilled in the substance; for because the eighth day, that is the next after the Sabbath, was to be the day on which the Lord was to rise from the dead, and quicken us, and give us the spiritual circumcision. This eighth day, that is, the next to the Sabbath, or the Lord’s day, went before in the type, which type ceased when the substance came, and the spiritual circumcision was given to us. So that we judge, no person is to be hindered from obtaining the grace, (that is of baptism) by the law which is now established; and that the spiritual circumcision ought not to be restrained by the circumcision which was according to the flesh; but that all are to be admitted to the grace of Christ; since Peter, speaking in the Acts of the apostles, says, the Lord hath shown me that no person is to be called common or unclean. This, therefore, dear brother, was our opinion in the assembly, that it is not for us to hinder any person from baptism, and from the grace of God, who is merciful, and kind, and affectionate to all. Which rule, as it holds for all, so we think it is more especially to be observed in reference to infants, and those that are newly born, to whom our help and the divine mercy is rather to be granted, because by their weeping and wailing at their first entrance into the world, they do intimate nothing so much as that they implore compassion,” &c.

Saint Ambrose, who wrote about 274 years after the apostles, declares expressly, “that infant-baptism was practised in his time, and in the time of the apostles.”

Saint Chrysostom observes, “that persons may be baptized either in their infancy, in middle age, or in old age.”—He tells us, infants were baptized, although they had no sin; and that the sign of the cross was made upon their foreheads at baptism.—Saint Hierome says, “if infants be not baptized, the sin of omitting their baptism is laid to the parent’s charge.”—Saint Austin, who wrote at the same time, about 280 years after the apostles, speaks “of infant-baptism as one of those practices which was not instituted by any council, but had always been in use.” The whole church of Christ, he informs us, had constantly held that infants were baptized for the forgiveness of sin.—That he “had never read or heard of any Christian, Catholic or sectary, who held otherwise.”—“That no christian, of any sort, ever denied it to be useful or necessary.” “If any one,” saith he, “should ask for divine authority in this matter, though that, which the whole church practises, and which has not been instituted by councils, but was ever in use, may be believed, very reasonably, to be a thing delivered or ordered by the apostles, yet we may, besides, take a true estimate, how much the sacrament of baptism does avail infants, by the circumcision which God’s former people received.”

No one of these ancient Fathers ever wrote directly in favour of, or against, infant-baptism. In their various discourses and writings, they often mention it, occasionally and transiently, when discoursing on some other subject.—They mention it as a general practice of universal notoriety, about which there was no controversy, in order to confute some prevailing heresy, or establish certain doctrines, that were then disputed. Similar testimonies might easily be produced from the writings of many other ancient witnesses, but this would unnecessarily add to the prolixity of the present work. I will therefore conclude, by stating very briefly, the incontestible and conclusive evidence in proof of infant-baptism, arising out of the well-known Pelagian controversy respecting original sin, which happened about three hundred years after the apostles.

Pelagius held, that infants were born free from any natural and sinful defilements. The chief opposers of him and his adherents were Saint Hierome, and Saint Austin, who constantly urged, very closely, in all their writings upon the subject, the following argument, viz. “That infants are, by all christians, acknowledged to stand in need of baptism, which must be in them for original sin, since they have no other.” “If they have no sin, why are they then baptized, according to the rule of the church, for the forgiveness of sins? Why are they washed in the laver of regeneration, if they have no pollution?” Pelagius, and also Celestius, one of his principal abettors, were extremely puzzled and embarrassed with this argument. They knew not how to evade or surmount its force, but by involving themselves in greater absurdities and difficulties. Some persons aggravated the supposed error, by charging upon them the denial of infant-baptism, as a consequence that followed from their tenet. Pelagius disclaimed the slanderous imputation with abhorrence, declaring that he was accused falsely. In the confession of faith, Pelagius then exhibited, which Dr. Wall has recited, he owns, “that baptism ought to be administered to infants, with the same sacramental words which are used in the case of adult persons.”—He vindicates himself in the strongest terms, saying, “that men slander him as if he denied the sacrament of baptism to infants, and did promise the kingdom of heaven to any person without the redemption of Christ; and affirms that he never heard of any, not even the most impious heretic, that would say such a thing of infants.” Now these difficulties would have been instantly removed, and the battery, which so greatly annoyed them, been demolished at once, by only denying that infants were to be baptized. But they did not suggest or entertain any doubt at all respecting this doctrine. Pelagius readily avowed, in the most explicit manner, the incontested right, and the established immemorial practice of infant-baptism. Celestius also confessed, “that infants were to be baptized according to the rule of the universal church.”

One of these men was born and educated in Britain, and the other in Ireland. They both lived a long time at Rome, the centre of the world and place to which all people resorted. Celestius settled at Jerusalem, and Pelagius travelled over all the principal churches of Europe, Asia and Africa. If there had been any number of churches, or a single church, in any part of the world, not only in that but in the two preceding ages, who denied the baptism of infants, these learned, sagacious persons must have known or heard of it; and certainly they would have mentioned it, in order to check the triumph of their opponents, and to wrest from them that argument, by which, above all others, they were most grievously pressed. It is evident there was no society of Baptists then in the world, nor had there been any of that denomination, within the memory of man. The confession of Pelagius and Celestius amounts almost to demonstration. It proves, beyond all reasonable doubt, that infant-baptism had universally obtained, and had always been practised among christians, even from the apostolic times.

Dr. Wall, who enjoyed the best advantages for being acquainted with the history of infant-baptism, and who made this the principal subject of his studies and enquiries, briefly sums up the evidence on both sides, in the following words: “Lastly, for the first four hundred years, there appears only one man, Tertullian, who advised the delay of infant-baptism in some cases, and one Gregory, who did perhaps practise such delay in the case of his own children; but no society of men so thinking or so practising; or any one man saying it was unlawful to baptize infants. So in the next seven hundred years, there is not so much as one man to be found, who either spoke for or practised any such delay, but all the contrary. And when about the year 1130, one sect among the Waldenses or Albigenses declared against the baptizing of infants, as being incapable of salvation, the main body of that people rejected their opinion; and they of them who held that opinion, quickly dwindled away and disappeared, there being no more persons heard of, holding that tenet, until the rising of the German anti-pædobaptists in the year 1522.”

REED’S APOLOGY.

Footnote 86:

See Wall’s History of Infant-Baptism, Part II. page 52-86.

Footnote 87:

They that would see more on this subject may consult G. J. Voss, de baptismo disput. xiv. Forbes. instruct. hist. theol. Lib. x. cap. v. and Wall’s history of infant-baptism, vol. I.

Footnote 88:

See Dr. Owen’s complete Collection of Sermons, page 580, 581. of dipping; in which he observes, that βαπτω, when used in these scriptures, Luke xvi. 24. and John xiii. 26. is translated to dip; and in Rev. xix. 13. where we read of a vesture dipped in blood; it is better rendered stained, by sprinkling blood upon it; and all these scriptures denote only a touching one part of the body, and not plunging. In other authors, it signifies, tingo, immergo, lavo, abluo; but in no author it ever signifies to dip, but only in order to washing, or as the means of washing. As for the Hebrew word טבל, rendered, by the LXX. in Gen. xxxvii. 31. by μολύνω, to stain by sprinkling, or otherwise mostly by βαπτω: In 2 Kings v. 14. they render it by βαπτιζω, and no where else: In ver. 10. Elisha commands Naaman to wash; and accordingly, ver. 14. pursuant to this order, it is said, he dipped himself seven times; the word is ויטבל; which the LXX. render εβαπτισατω; and in Exod. xii. 22. where the word טבל is used, which we render dip, speaking concerning the dipping the bunch of hyssop in the blood, the LXX. render it by the word βαπτω: And, in I Sam. xiv. 27; it is said, that Jonathan dipped the end of his rod in an honey-comb; the word here is also ויטבל, and the LXX. render it εβαψεν; in which place it cannot be understood of his dipping it by plunging: And in Lev. iv. 6. 17. and chap. ix. 9. the priest is said to dip his finger in the blood, which only intends his touching the blood, so as to sprinkle it; and therefore does not signify plunging.

This learned author likewise observes, that βαπτιζω signifies to wash; as instances out of all authors may be given; and he particularly mentions Suidas, Hesychius, Julius Pollux, and Phavorinus and Eustachius. And he further adds, that it is first used in the scripture, in Mark i. 8. John i. 33. and to the same purpose, Acts i. 5. in which place it signifies to pour; for the expression is equivocal; I baptize you with water, but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost: which is an accomplishment of that promise, that the Holy Ghost should be poured on them. As for other places, in Mark vii. 2. 4. νίπτω, which signifies to wash, and is so translated, is explained in the words immediately following, as signifying to baptize. And, in Luke xi. 38. it is said, that the Pharisee marvelled that our Saviour had not washed before dinner: The word in the Greek is ἐβαπτισθη, to whom he replies in the following verse, Ye Pharisees make clean the outside, &c. so that the word, βαπτιζω signifies there to cleanse, or to use the means of cleansing.

He also observes, that though the original and natural signification of the word imports, to dip, to plunge, to dye; yet it also signifies to wash or cleanse: Nevertheless, he thinks that it is so far from signifying nothing else but to dip or plunge, that when it is to be understood in that sense, the words ought to be εμβάπτω, or εμβαπτιζω, rather than βαπτω, or βαπτίζω; and also that it no where signifies to dip, but as denoting a mode of, and in order to washing; and that it signifies to wash, in all good authors. He also refers to Scapula and Stephanus, as translating the word βαπτιζω by lavo, or abluo; and Suidas, as rendering it by madefacio, lavo, abluo, purgo, mundo: And he speaks of some authors, that he had searched in every place wherein they mention baptism, and that he found not one word to the purpose; and therefore concludes, that he was obliged to say, and was ready to make it good, that no honest man, who understands the Greek tongue, can deny the word to signify to wash, as well as to dip.[89]

Footnote 89:

Dr. Wall, in the appendix of his reply to Dr. Gale, mentions a remarkable instance, in which the mode of wetting or of applying water was certainly that of pouring, and not that of dipping. It is as follows:—St. Origen, when commenting on the Baptism of John, enquires thus of the Pharisees; “How could you think that Elias, when he should come, would baptize, who did not in Ahab’s time baptize the wood upon the altar, which was to be washed before it was burnt by the Lord’s appearing in fire? But he ordered the priest to do that; not once only, but he says, do it the second time; and they did it the second time. And do it the third time; and they did it the third time. Therefore, how could it be likely that this man, who did not then baptize, but assigned that work to others, would himself baptize, when he should, according to the prophecy of Malachi, again appear here on earth?”

We find in the first book of Kings, xviii. 33, that the order given by Elijah was to fill four barrels with water, and pour it on the wood and on the burnt offering. This pouring of water, Origen, that accurate scholar, who lived in the second century, and was well acquainted with the Greek classics, and Greek Testament, calls baptizing. In the very same sentence, he makes use of the Greek word Baptizo four times; twice with express reference to the Baptism of John; and twice with express reference to that Baptism which took place in the days of the Prophet Elijah; which baptism, we are expressly told, was not performed by dipping the wood and sacrifice into water, but by pouring water upon them.

It is also evident, even from the frequent use of the word baptizo, by heathen authors, that it does not always signify a total immersion. Mr. Walker tells us, “that Porphyrie mentions a river in India, into which if an offender enters, or attempts to pass through it, he is immediately baptized up to his head:” (baptizetai mechri Kephales.) Here a person is said to be baptized, although his head did not go under, but remained above the water. This certainly was not a total immersion.

“He also instances a case from Mr. Sydenham, as delivered by the oracle (viz. askos baptize, dunai de toi ou themis esti.”) In which instance, if dunai signifies to plunge wholly under water, as it certainly does, then baptize must signify something less than a total immersion.—“Baptize him as a bottle, but it is not lawful to plunge him wholly under the water.” The baptism here described, resembles that of a blown bladder or bottle of leather, which when put into the water, will not sink to the bottom, but swim upon the top.

The same critical author mentions an instance from Schrevelii’s and Robertson’s Lexicons, 19th chapter, in which case, the primitive word bapto signifies a wetting with water, that was certainly less, and very different from a total dipping or immersion. The sentence is this. (“Baptei men askon, udor de ugron dunei pote.”) “He indeed baptizeth a bladder or bottle, but it never goeth under the liquid water.”

To these instances, we might add a well known case, taken from a poem attributed to Homer, called the battle of the frogs and the mice, in which the lake is said to be baptized by the blood of a frog. (Ebapteto de aimati limne porphureo.) This lake was not dipped into the blood of a frog; it was only bespattered and tinged therewith.

We could easily multiply authorities if it were necessary. It appears undeniably evident from the Greek classicks, and from learned writers and commentators, both ancient and modern, that the word baptizo has other significations besides that of a total dipping or immersion.

The most celebrated and respectable Lexicographers and criticks have often translated baptizo into the following Latin words, viz. baptizo, mergo, immergo, tingo, intingo, lave, abluo, madefacio, purgo, mundo. No one, I presume, will pretend that all these words are mentioned as being perfectly synonimous—of the same meaning exactly. And certainly if the word baptizo signify any thing less or different from a total immersion, then persons may be baptized in some other mode.

Besides, if it had been the intention of Christ and of his Apostles, to specify the mode, or to have restricted all christians to one and the same mode of baptizing, they might, for this purpose, have selected from the Greek language words of the most unequivocal and definite signification. If it had been their intention to specify the mode of sprinkling, they might have used the word Rantizo; if the mode of pouring, they might have used the word Ekcheo; if that mode of bathing or washing, which is performed by the application of water with friction or rubbing, they might have used the word Louo; and if it had been their intention to specify the mode of dipping, they might have used the word Dupto or Duno, &c.

REED’S APOLOGY.

Footnote 90:

Ἐις and ἐκ.

Footnote 91:

Ἐις τὴν Θαλασσαν.

Footnote 92:

Ἐκ.

Footnote 93:

If any one has a mind to see how these particles ἐις and ἐκ, are used in the New Testament, he may consult Schmid. concord. in voc. ἐις and ἐκ, where there are a great number of places mentioned, in which these words are used; and, it will hardly be thought, by any impartial reader, that the greatest part of them can be rendered by, into or out of; but rather to, or from.

Footnote 94:

Γδατκ πολλα.

Footnote 95:

See Lightfoot’s works, Vol. I. Page 500.

Footnote 96:

In Col. ii. 12. and context, is a succession of figures, designed, in different ways, to illustrate and enforce the same fact. Verse 11. “In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision, made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ.” That is, in putting off the old man, you are circumcised without hands; the work is effected by the Holy Spirit—You are born again, which is spiritual circumcision. “Circumcision is that of the heart.” This renewing of the Holy Spirit consists in putting off the body of sin, in renouncing sin, and reforming the life. Or, we are “buried with him in baptism.” As the burial of Jesus Christ gave evidence, that he had really died, the just for the unjust; that he had yielded himself a sacrifice for sin; so we in our spiritual circumcision or baptism, the figure now used, show ourselves to be really dead to sin, crucified in the lusts of our minds. As Christ, when buried, was dead and separated from the world; so in regeneration we become separate from sin. We are new creatures, having put off the old man. We are buried from the wicked indulgences and pursuits of the world.

The death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, are, not only causes, but types and symbols to represent the death of our sins, our putting off the old man, and becoming new creatures.

No reference is made in the text to the water of baptism, any more than to the knife of circumcision in the preceding verse. The writer is speaking of that baptism, and of that alone, in which we “are risen with Christ, through the faith, which is the operation of God.” This certainly can be nothing less than spiritual baptism, or regeneration; for the most violent advocate for dipping, or plunging, or burying, will not pretend, that this, necessarily, is connected with “faith;” he will allow it may be possible for a man to be plunged and buried in water, and yet not have “the faith, which is the operation of God.” If he allow this, and allow this he must and will, then our text is no support of his cause. It cannot be water baptism which is mentioned.

Were not this the fact, nothing could be inferred respecting the mode of baptism. It would then only signify that, as Christ was buried and separated from the world; so we in baptism are buried and separated from a world of sin. The zeal for the literal construction of this figure may, perhaps, be extinguished by indulging it in other instances. St. Paul says, “I am crucified with Christ.” Would any person suppose from this, that he had been led to Calvary, nailed to the cross, and pierced by the soldier’s spear? Christians are said to be “circumcised in Christ.” Does any one infer from this that all Christians experience the bloody rite of the Jews? Or, because Christians “are partakers of Christ’s sufferings,” are all christians, therefore, betrayed by Judas, spit upon, buffeted, and crowned with thorns? Or, because St. Paul says the Philippians were his “crown,” were they, therefore, formed into a crown of honor, and worn as a badge of future glory? Or, because the sacrament represents the sufferings and death of Christ, are all worthy communicants crucified? Were our baptist brethren consistent with themselves, such would be their explanation of these passages of scripture.

It immediately follows our text; “wherein also you were risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.” Wherein, or in which baptism “we are risen,” actually “risen with Christ by the faith” which God gives to the new creature. You, who have this spiritual baptism, rise like Christ above the selfish motives, and sensual pursuits of a fallen world. You seek the kingdom of God; you aspire after divine good.

Persons, born again, like Jesus Christ, separate their hearts from the world, and rise to a divine life. That this is the only true construction of the text, may be inferred from a corresponding passage, Rom. vi. 4. “Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death, that like as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” By spiritual baptism we partake the privileges of Christ’s death. By dying to sin ourselves, as we do in the new birth, we resemble Jesus Christ in his death, who died “to make an end of sin.” As Christ was raised from the grave; so we, not in water baptism, but in regeneration or spiritual baptism, are “raised” to walk in newness of life. Old things are done away; all things are become new. If we have experienced this spiritual baptism, we shall have the Spirit of Christ, We shall be separate from the world of sin, as Christ was in the grave, and we shall like him rise to a holy, a new life. We obey a new master, seek a new way of salvation, act from new motives, to accomplish new designs; we choose new companions, experience new sorrows, and new joys. As if buried, we are separate from our former lives.

St. John says, “He [Christ] shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire.” The Selucians and Hermians understood this literally, and maintained that material fire was necessary in the administration of baptism. Valentinus, like our baptists, rebaptized those, who had received baptism out of the sect, and drew them through the fire. Herculian, cited by Clemens Alexandrinus, says that some applied a red hot iron to the ears of the baptized. St. Paul says, we are buried with Christ in baptism. This also has been understood literally; but such persons forget that to be consistent, on their plan, they should continue “buried” three days and three nights, the time Christ lay in the earth. Should any object that this would drown them, the baptist, in his way of treating figures, would have an easy answer, and readily prove that drowning was the very design of baptism. Rom. vi. 4. “We are buried with him by baptism into his death.” We are not merely buried, for this is only a part, any more than sprinkling; but we are buried to death, “buried into his death.” Thus he has scripture for drowning all whom he baptizes, and precisely as much scripture for drowning, as for burying. The very same passage, might he say, which commands burying, commands drowning, commands “death.”

In the present mode of plunging, the resemblance is almost entirely lost. What is the difference between laying a dead body in a rock, covering it with a great stone; sealing it in a solemn manner; all things continuing in this state, three days and three nights, what is the resemblance between this, and suddenly plunging a living body into water, and instantly lifting it out of the water? What possible likeness is there between a living person in the water, and a dead body in a rock? The similitude is little better than that of the blind man, who supposed the light of the sun was like the noise of a cannon. We have accordingly endeavoured to show in the introduction, that the elegant scholar, the christian orator of Tarsus, had no thought of any such resemblance; his object was to show, that in regeneration or spiritual baptism, which is followed “with newness of life,” or, a new life, “through faith which is the operation of God,” we are dead and buried to sin, and raised or made alive to God, as Christ was. The evident design of the text is to illustrate the preceding verse, which speaks of spiritual circumcision made without hands. This baptism is that by which we are raised with Christ; but in water baptism we are not always raised with Christ. If men are plunged they may generally be raised from the water; but this has no necessary connexion with “rising with Christ.” This baptism is also effected “through faith which is the operation of God;” but a man may be raised out of an ocean of water, every day of his life, and remain destitute of faith; therefore, the text has no reference to water baptism.

REV. E. PARISH’S SERMON.