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