Part 25

_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.

Footnote 69:

Μαθητεισατε.

Footnote 70:

_Vid Whitby in Loc._

Footnote 71:

This then is a repetition; go, _teach_, baptize, _teach_. This commission was to _disciple_ the world, baptizing and teaching are the specification, and are participles agreeing with the nomination.

It is no inference from the position of baptizing before teaching are that adults might be first baptized. This was the institution of the ordinance of baptism as well as the apostolic commission; yet it neither contains any direction either as to the mode or subjects; because Christ spoke to Jews, who knew that adult proselytes were carefully examined, whilst infants were circumcised with their parents without such examination. They also knew the various modes of religious purifications among the Jews; both John the Baptist, and they having under that dispensation baptized. Neither is faith essential to the validity of baptism, nor is the profession of it required of such as are incapable of making it.

Footnote 72:

To be brought into the visible church, is a high privilege, of which infants are as capable now, as under the former dispensation. Consent is not necessary; for infants receive inheritances. _This is by force of municipal laws._ But are not the laws of God of equal force?—_Baptism implies obligations, which can be founded only on consent._ Then it will follow that infants are not bound by human laws, for they have not assented to the social compact; they are under no obligation to obey parents, guardians, or masters, because they either did not choose them, or were incompetent to make such choice; they are not bound by the laws of God himself, which is this very case, because they have not consented to his authority; and if they never consent, they will be always free equally from all obligations, and all sin. Such are the consequences of the above objection.

Footnote 73:

The dictates of nature, uncontrouled by revelation, are the will of Christ, and our rule of duty. The _will of Christ_, expressed in these dictates, requires us to benefit our children as they are capable. _Baptism_, as the initiatory seal of God’s covenant, is a _benefit_ of which infants are _capable_.—This evidence is not _eclipsed_, but _brightened_, by scripture authority, as we shall see in the sequel of this chapter.

Let the reader carefully notice, that we do not suppose, by insisting on this argument, the insufficiency of _direct scripture_ evidence: for _this_ has been frequently urged with advantage, to satisfy persons of the best dispositions and abilities. That is, reader, “some of the most eminent Pœdobaptists that ever filled the Professor’s chair, or that ever yet adorned the Protestant pulpit.” But since our opponents insist, that what has been so often urged, is not conclusive; and _modestly_ affirm, it is only calculated to catch “the eye of a _superficial_ observer;” they are desired once more impartially to weigh this reasoning, and then, if they are able, to refute it. Let them know, however, that hackneyed phrases without meaning—principles taken upon trust—and empty declamation—must not be palmed on us instead of solid arguments.

Were it necessary, it would be easy to shew, that the principles above urged are no _novelty_; but are perfectly agreeable to experience,—and to the practical judgment of the most serious Pœdobaptists, both illiterate and learned. But waving this, we proceed next to another corroborating proof of the main proposition.

What we contend for is. That it is the _will of Christ_ we should _baptize_ our infant children. In proof of this we have shewn, first, that the _dictates of right reason_ require us to _benefit_ them, and consequently to _baptize_ them; as baptism is always a benefit when administered to _capable_ subjects. We come, secondly, to shew—That God has constantly approved of _this principle_, in all _preceding_ dispensations. In other words—That the _principle_ of the last argument is so far from being _weakened_ by scripture evidence, that the Lord’s _approbation_ of _it_, in his conduct towards the offspring of his professing people, in all the dispensations of true religion, is abundantly _illustrated_ and _confirmed_.

Mr. B’s misapplied but favourite maxim—“Positive laws imply their negative,” has no force in the baptismal controversy, until he demonstrates, in opposition to what is advanced, that the dictates of right reason must be _smothered_, or else, that revelation countermands their influence. But to _demonstrate_ the former, in matters about which, on the supposition, scripture is silent, is no easy task. And the difficulty will be _increased_ in proportion as the sacred oracles corroborate reason’s verdict. Let us now appeal to these oracles.

We appeal to that period of the church, and dispensation of grace, which extended from Adam to Noah. The inspired narrative of this long space of time is very short: on which we make the following remarks. We then assert,

Whatever exhibition of grace was made to antediluvian _parents_, was constantly made to their _offspring_; and consequently whatever seals of grace were granted to the former, must equally appertain to the latter if not voluntary _rejectors_ of them. Therefore, all such parents had a _revealed_ warrant to regard their offspring as entitled to the _seals_ of the covenant, in _like manner_ as themselves, according to their capacity. For,

All allow that Gen. iii. 15. contains the promulgation of gospel grace; nor are we authorised to question the interest of _children_ therein with their parents, without an express contravention. For, it were _unnatural_ for a parent to _confine_ such a _benefit_ to his own person to the exclusion of his children, who are not only parts of his family but of _himself_. To which we may add, that the phrase _thy seed_, though principally referring to the Messiah, respected Eve’s _natural seed_ as sharers in common with herself in the exhibition of mercy; and we suppose not less so than her _husband_. For this application of the phrase _thy seed_, compare Gen. xvii. 7. and Gal. iii. 16. Again,

It is generally agreed, that not only the institution of _sacrifices_, but also the _coats_ of skin, (Gen. iii. 21.) were _emblematic_ of covenant blessings; and not only so, in common with mere types, but _seals_ of the covenant, as earnests and pledges of exhibited favour. “Who will deny,” says Witsius, “that God’s cloathing our first parents was a _symbolical_ act? Do not Christ’s own words (Rev. iii. 18.) very clearly allude to this?” As for _sacrifices_, they were slain at God’s command after the promulgation of the covenant. For, if Abel _offered by faith_, (Heb xi. 4.) it presupposes the divine _institution_ of them. And this institution, most probably, took place when God—taking occasion from the insufficiency of the aprons of fig-leaves, which the fallen pair sewed together, to cover the shame of their nakedness—himself cloathed them with coats of skins. And most divines agree, that it is very probable, these were the skins of those beasts which were slain for _sacrifices_. However, God gave testimony to these oblations of the ancient patriarchs, that they were _acceptable_ to him; but this cannot be supposed without admitting them to be _divinely instituted_. Besides, a distinction of _clean_ and _unclean_ animals was observed before the deluge; which was not from _nature_, but the mere divine pleasure; and may we not add, with a particular respect to _sacrifices_? Now,

If, according to Witsius and others, these _skins of beasts_, and _sacrifices_, were appointed _seals of the righteousness of faith_; I would ask—Was the _covenant_ directed for the use of their _seed in common_ with the parents, and not the _seal_ in like manner? For, if the seals be affixed to the covenant for _confirmation_ of its contents, as well as, in another view, for signification; I would fain know, by what rule of construction we can infer, that the covenant _itself_ belongs to the parents and their seed _in common_, while the _confirmation_ of it belongs _exclusively_ to the former? Is it not contrary to _custom_ and _unreasonable_ to conclude, that a charter of privileges, or a testamentary instrument, (which by the way express the nature of the covenant) belongs to a man and his heirs _alike_, but the confirming seal respects the former _only_; while on the supposition, the sovereign, or the testator, has given _no ground_ for such partiality? Besides,

If the covenant itself be a benefit to the persons to whom it is directed, as it certainly is in _every_ dispensation of it, it follows that the _confirmation_ of it is so; for parents, therefore, to _deny_ their offspring all the share in such common benefits they are capable of, without a divine warrant, is _unnatural_, and an act of _injustice_. We may therefore conclude—that from Adam to Noah, the _covenant_ and its _seals_ appertained to _infants_ in common with their parents.

We appeal next to that period of the church which extended from Noah to Abraham: On which we observe,

Whatever benefits and privileges belonged to the former dispensation, continue to flow on to the present, if not _expressly_ repealed; for the change of a dispensation _of itself_, is no adequate cause of their abrogation. That would be as unreasonable as to suppose that the bare change from night to day was, _of itself_, an adequate cause of a man’s being disinherited. Or we may as well say, that the abstract notion of an epoch in chronology has a real influence on the sequence of events. Whatever covenant privileges, therefore, belonged to Noah and his family _before_ the deluge, if not expressly repealed, must belong to them _after_ the deluge. But,

So far were these privileges from being abridged at this period, that they were greatly enlarged and confirmed, by additional discoveries. For thus we read, Gen. vi. 18. _But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shall come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons’ wives with thee._ Again, chap. vii. 1. _And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou, and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation._ And again, chap. viii. 20. _And Noah builded an altar unto the Lord; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt-offerings on the altar._ Once more, chap. ix. 8, 9, 12, 13. _And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying, And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you. And God said, This is the token of the covenant I do set my bow in the cloud._ Hence we further learn,