Part 22
Now the main thing to be considered, is, how baptism is a sign and seal thereof? To this it may be answered, that we are not to suppose that this, or any other ordinance, confers the grace of the covenant, as the Papists pretend[66]; for it is, at most, but a significant sign or seal thereof; whereas, the grace of the covenant is the thing signified thereby. There are, as has been before observed two ways, by which persons may be said to be in covenant with God, namely, professedly, or visibly, which is the immediate intent and design of this ordinance; and there is a being in covenant, as laying hold on the grace of the covenant, when we give up ourselves to Christ, by faith; and, as the consequence thereof, lay claim to the blessings of his redemption. Now baptism is a sign and seal of the covenant of grace in both these senses, though in different respects. The ordinance itself is a professed dedication to God, or an acknowledgment that the person baptized is obliged to be the Lord’s; and signifies his right to the external blessings of the covenant of grace, which are contained in the gospel-dispensation. There is also more than this contained in a person’s being given to God in baptism, whether it be by himself as in those who are baptized when adult; or by his parents, as in the case of infants, in that the person who dedicates, expresses his faith in Christ, the Mediator of the covenant, and hopes for the saving blessings which he has purchased for his people. It is one thing, for this ordinance to confer these blessings, and another, for it to be an instituted means, in which we express our faith and hope, that these blessings shall be bestowed, the person being devoted to God with that view.
There are other two things that are more especially signified in baptism, namely, privileges expected, and obligations acknowledged.
1. The privileges expected are such as accompany salvation, which are the special gift of the Holy Ghost, _viz._ the taking away the guilt and pollution of sin, and our being made partakers of all the blessings that Christ hath purchased, and God the Father, in him, has promised to the heirs of salvation. I do not say, that all who are baptized are made partakers of these privileges; but they are given up to God, or give up themselves to him in this ordinance, in hope of obtaining them.
2. Here is a public profession, or acknowledgment of our obligation to be the Lord’s. This is, from the nature of the thing, implied in its being a dedication to God. When we make a surrender of ourselves to him, we do hereby declare, that we are willing to be his servants and subjects, and entirely at his disposal: This is contained in a fiducial act of self-dedication to God, and cannot be done by one in the behalf of another: And, it is to be feared, that many, who give up themselves to God in this ordinance, when adult, though they make a profession of their faith, yet do not give up themselves by faith; but that is only known to the heart-searching God: Nevertheless, as we express our faith and hope, in this ordinance, concerning the privileges but now mentioned; so we, in this act of dedication, confess, that God has a right to us, and that it is our indispensible duty to be his, so that hereby we are, either by our own consent, as in self-dedication, professedly the Lord’s; or this is acknowledged by those who have a right to dedicate, and thereby to signify this obligation; which, because it is highly just and reasonable, the persons devoted are obliged to stand to, or else are brought under a great degree of guilt, in not being stedfast in God’s covenant.
There is one thing more mentioned in this answer, namely, that the person baptized, is solemnly admitted into the visible church, which I rather choose to pass over; since it is hard to understand what some mean by the visible church, and a person’s becoming a member thereof by baptism. We have elsewhere considered the difficulties that are contained in the description of the visible church; together with the qualifications for, and admission of persons into church-communion.[67] If, by being admitted into the visible church, we are to understand that a person has a right to all the ordinances of the church by baptism, without being admitted afterwards into it by mutual consent; this is contrary to the faith and practice of most of the reformed churches. And if, on the other hand, they mean hereby, that here is a public declaration of our hope, that the person baptized shall be made partaker of those privileges which Christ has purchased for, and given to his church: This is no more than what has been already explained in our considering the baptismal expectations and obligations; but, whether this can be properly called an admission into the church, I rather leave to be determined by those who better understand what they mean, when they say that this is done in baptism, than I do.[68]
Footnote 59:
Βαπτιζω, has been said to signify immergo and _exclusively_ when applied to sacred baptism. And this is necessary to establish immersion as the only mode. The question is not, therefore, whether Βαπτιζω, sometimes signifies to immerse, but _whether it never signifies any thing else_. This can be proved, it is presumed, by no Lexicographer, and no version of the New Testament. In the New Testament it is taken in different senses, for example we read of a Baptism with _the Holy Ghost and with fire_. It is therefore a _generic_ term and not _specific_, as _immerse_ cannot be substituted for it in all places. If a specific Greek term signifying to _plunge_ had occasionally been used for it, in the New Testament, yet baptism being in our Saviour’s commission to his disciples, should not have been confined to one mode, but this is never the case. The numerous admissions of our divines, that Βαπτιζω, primarily signifies to _immerse_, and which are disingenuously collected to impose on the ignorant; do not weaken our cause, as they did neither influence the practice nor sentiments of those who used them.
If Βαπτιζω, signifies to _immerse totally_, or _partially_; to dip, to cleanse, or purify, &c. it leaves the mode to our convenience or choice; and reason also accords, that the mode is unimportant with respect to moral defilement.—Porphery has “Βαπτιζεται μεχρι κεφαλης.” The oracle said “Βαπτιζη _him as a bottle_” (of leather, which could swim) “_but it is not lawful to plunge him wholly under water_.” Strabo says, “Βαπτιζομενων _up to the waist_.” Aristotle says “Βαπτεικαι ανθιζει τηνχειρα,” _it stains and renders florid the hand_. Aristophanes says, “Βαπτομενος Βραχειοις,” _stained with tawny colours_. Homer says, “¨Εβαπτετο δ᾽᾽ αιματι λιμνω,” _And the fountain was tinged with blood_. Rev. xix. 13. “Ιματων Βεβαμενον αιματι.” Isaiah xxi. 4. “_Fearfulness_ Βαπτιζει _me_.”
Footnote 60:
Διαφοροις βαπτισμοις.
Footnote 61:
The promulgation of this command marks a new and important era in the history of the church and of the world. These words may be considered as the public and formal abrogation of the Mosaic economy; and the authoritative annunciation of the new order of things under the gospel.
The first communications of divine truth, through Adam and Noah, were made indiscriminately to the human family; but, in both instances, the precious deposit was generally adulterated, and nearly lost. The wisdom of God, therefore, saw it to be necessary to select and separate from the idolatrous world, a particular family which might serve as a repository of the divine oracles and institutions; until that ‘_Seed of the woman_’ should come, of whom it was predicted, that he should ‘_bruise the serpent’s head_:’ and that _‘seed of Abraham’ in whom all the families of the earth should be blessed_.
But when JESUS CHRIST, _our great high-priest of good things to come, had, through the eternal Spirit, offered himself without spot to God, to bear the sins of many_; and had _by this one offering of his own body, perfected them that are sanctified_, the service of the first tabernacle was set aside, and as to any utility, or divine authority, ceased forever; as an emblem of which, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom, at the very moment of expiation; when Christ our high-priest, by sheding his vital blood and pouring out his soul unto death, _offered his one great sacrifice for sins_.
So great, however, was the power of early and national prejudice, that the apostles did not, for some time, understand the extent of their commission. They had, before, been sent on a short mission, on which occasion it was ordered, that they should not go _into the way of the Gentiles_, nor even _enter into any city of the Samaritans_; and they seem to have thought, that by going _into all the world_, and _preaching to every creature_, no more was intended, than that they should go to the seed of Abraham now widely dispersed among the nations. But this veil was soon removed, by a particular revelation made to Peter in a vision; and by the calling of Paul to the apostleship, who, from the beginning, received commission to go to the Gentiles, and was, in a peculiar manner, designated and directed, _to preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ_.
DR. ALEXANDER’S MISSIONARY SERMON.
Footnote 62:
Εις τὸ ὁνομα.
Footnote 63:
Εις Χριστόν.
Footnote 65:
_See vol. II. Quest. XXXI, XXXII. Page 167, & 185._
Footnote 66:
_There is a common aphorism among them, that the sacraments, and baptism in particular, confer grace, ex opere operato._
Footnote 67:
_See vol. II. page 166-216._
Footnote 68:
The Gospel is glad tidings of great joy, not a system of new and terrifying restrictions and exclusions; so far from retracting formerly conceded privileges, and confining the church within narrower limits, it publishes peace and salvation, and invites the whole human family to participate in these blessings. It must either be referred to the impressions it has made, or to uninterrupted usage that females have, by a general consent, been deemed to possess an unquestionable right to approach the holy communion, though neither precept for it is found, nor an example of it recorded in the Scriptures. This baptism of infants was still less necessary to be enjoined by, and less likely to have been noticed in the short history given us of apostolical transactions.
He who gave parental affection, and is the Lord of his church under every dispensation, conferred on children at an early age of the world the privilege of sharing with their parents in the seals of grace, and bearing the tokens of his covenant. Jewish christians having themselves experienced such benignity, and been given to the same God, whom they now served under brighter displays of his eternal and unchangeable love, could not have expected, that, an entrance into the milder gospel-church would have been denied to the seed whom God had given them, and whom they had devoted to him not only in prayer, but in that ordinance which he had appointed for the purpose. An ordinance which being now obsolete was supplied by another, apparently as proper for their children as themselves. Because infants are incapable of repenting and believing, these duties were not required nor expected of them, either under the old, or new dispensation; but though incapable of actual sin, and therefore free from obligations of obedience unto the law, yet their nature is not pure, and consequently needs the sanctifying influence of divine grace, which can correct the latent enmity, and renew the soul. They are capable, therefore, of spiritual blessings, and may consequently be members of the invisible church, and received into the church triumphant. The obvious reasonableness of the privilege of being received with their parents into the society of the worshippers of God, a privilege publicly known to have been conferred by the great Head of the church, equally prevented the supposition of an implied repeal, and the necessity of a renewal of the right.
If indeed there had been a different religion introduced; if christians were not engrafted into the old stock; if they worshipped some other than the God of Israel; if there was another moral law, another Christ than he whose day the fathers anticipated, and another faith; this privilege of receiving infants into the church might have been interrupted; and in that case unless expressly again enjoined, it ought not to have been regarded in practice. But if the christian religion is founded upon the prophets; if the peculiarities of the Jewish worship were but shadows of gospel things; if both were directed to the same glory of God and salvation of men; if they both enjoined the same holiness and presented the same object of faith; if those who were saved under the Old Testament shall be associated with those who are saved under the New; the privileges formerly granted to children will remain the same; and it is not wonderful that the first christian should obey the dictates of parental tenderness; and that desiring the salvation of their children as well as their own, should cause their households to be baptized as well as themselves. To have affirmed in the gospel history expressly, that children were a part of the household, could have answered no purpose in the first days of christianity, but would have been thought repetitions and unmeaning until modern times. In the fifth, in the third and even so early as in the second century, the baptism of infants was the established usage of the church, and it was then thought, and not disputed, to have been the practice of the apostles themselves.
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]