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.