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.
Quest. CLXVII.
Quest. CLXVII. How is baptism to be improved by us?