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.