·
Dr John Gill (1697-1771) on BAPTISM. From " A
Body of Divinity" Pub 1770.
...Firstly,
The baptism of all nations is not commanded; but the baptism only of those who
are taught. If infants, as a part of all nations are to be baptised because
they are "of all nations", then the infants of unbelievers ought to
be baptised as well as the infants of Christians
First they teach
all nations, then dip those that are taught in water, for it cannot be that the
body should receive the sacrament of baptism, unless the soul has before
received the truth of faith." And so says Athanasius, " Wherefore the
Saviour does not simply command to baptize; but first says, teach, and then
baptize thus, In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost;
that faith might come of teaching, and baptism be perfected."
Secondly, There
is no precedent for the baptism of infants in the word of God. Among the vast
numbers who flocked to John's baptism from all parts, we read of no infants
that were brought with them for that purpose, or that were baptized by him. And
though more were baptized by Christ than by John (that is, by the apostles of
Christ, at his order) yet no mention is made of any infant baptized by them;
and though three thousand persons were baptized at once, yet not an infant
among them: and in all the accounts of baptism in the Acts of the Apostles in
different parts of the world, not a single instance of infant-baptism is given.
There is, indeed, mention made of households, or families, baptized; and which
the paedobaptists endeavour to avail themselves of; but they ought to be sure
there were infants in these families, and that they were baptized, or else they
must baptize them on a very precarious foundation; since there are families who
have no infants in them, and how can they be sure there were any in these the
scriptures speak of? and it lies upon them to prove there were infants in them,
and that these infants were baptized ; or the allegation of these instances is
to no purpose. We are able to prove there are many things in the account of
these families, which are inconsistent with infants, and which make it at least
probable there were none in them, and which also make it certain that those who
were baptized were adult persons and believers in Christ.
There are but
three families, if so many, who are usually instanced: the first is that of
The second
instance is of the Philippian jailer and his household, which consisted of
adult persons, and of such only; for the apostle spoke the word of the Lord to
all that were in his house, which they were capable of hearing, and it seems of
understanding; for not only he rejoiced at the good news of salvation by
Christ, but all in his house hearing it, rejoiced likewise; which
joy of theirs was the joy of faith; for he and they were believers in God,
Father, Son, and Spirit; for it is expressly said, that he rejoiced, believing
in God with all his house; so that they were not only hearers of the word, but
rejoiced at it, and believed in it, and in God the Saviour, revealed in it to
them, ver. 32, 33, 34. all which shows them to be adult persons, and not infants.
The third
instance, if distinct from the household of the jailor, which some take to be
the same, is that of Stephanus; but be it a different one, it is certain it
consisted of adult persons, believers in Christ, and very useful in the service
of religion ; they were the first fruits of Achaia, the first converts in those
parts, and who addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints, 1 Cor. xvi.
15. which, whether understood of giving themselves up to the ministry of the
word to the saints, or of the ministration of their substance to the poor,
which they cheerfully communicated, they must be adults and not infants. There
being then neither precept nor precedent in the word of God for infant baptism,
it may be justly condemned as unscriptural and unwarrantable.
Thirdly, Nor is
infant-baptism to be concluded from any things or passages recorded either in
the Old or in the New Testament. Baptism being an ordinance peculiar to the New
Testament, it cannot be expected there should be any directions about the
observance of it in the Old Testament; and whatever may be gathered relative to
it, from typical and figurative baptisms, under the former dispensation, there
is nothing from thence in favour of infant baptism, yet we are often referred
thereunto for the origin and foundation of it, but to no purpose.
1.It is not
fact, as has been asserted, that the infants of believers have, with their
parents, been taken into covenant with God in the former ages of the church, if
by this is meant the covenant of grace. The first covenant made with man, was
that of works, made with Adam, and which indeed included all his posterity, to
whom he stood as a federal head, as no one ever since did to his natural
offspring; in whom they all sinned, were condemned, and died; which surely
cannot be pleaded in favour of the infants of believers.
After the fall,
the covenant of grace, and the way of life and salvation by Christ, were
revealed to Adam and Eve, personally, as interested therein; but not to their
natural seed and posterity, and as interested therein; for then all mankind
must be taken into the covenant of grace, and so nothing peculiar to the
infants of believers; of which not the least syllable is mentioned throughout
the whole age of the church, reaching from Adam to Noah.
The next
covenant we read of, is that made with Noah, which was not made with him and
his immediate offspring only; nor were any taken into it as infants of
believers, nor had they any sacrament or rite as a token of it, and of God
being their God in a peculiar relation. Surely this will not be said of Ham,
one of the immediate sons of Noah. That covenant was made with Noah, and with
all mankind to the end of the world, and even with every living creature, the
beasts of the field, promising security from a universal deluge, as long as the
world should stand; and so had nothing in it peculiar to the infants of
believers.
The next
covenant is that made with Abraham and his seed, on which great stress is laid,
Gen. xvii. 10-14. and this is said to be "the grand turning point on which
the issue of the controversy very much depends; and that if Abraham's covenant,
which included his infant children, and gave them a right to circumcision, was
not the covenant of grace, then it is confessed, that the main ground on which
the right of infants to baptism is asserted is taken away; and consequently the
principal arguments in support of the doctrine are overturned." Now, that
this covenant was not the pure covenant of grace, in distinction from the covenant
of works, but rather a covenant of works, will soon be proved; and if so, then
the main ground of infant's baptism is taken away, and its principal arguments
in support of it overturned.
That it is not
the covenant of grace is clear,--
1. From its
being never so called, nor by any name which shows it to be such; but the
covenant of circumcision, Acts vii. 8. No two things are more opposed to one
another than circumcision and grace; circumcision is a work of the law, which
they that sought to be justified by, fell from grace, Gal. v.2, 3, 4. Nor can
this covenant be the same we are now under, which is a New covenant, or a New
administration of the covenant of grace, since it is abolished, and no more in
being and force.
2. It appears to
be a covenant of works, and not of grace, since it was to be kept by men, under
a severe penalty. Abraham was to keep it, and his seed after him; something was
to be done by them, their flesh to be circumcised, and a penalty was annexed.
In case of disobedience or neglect; such a soul was to be cut off from his
people: all which shows it to be a covenant of works and not of grace.
3. It is plain,
it was a covenant that might be broken; of the uncircumcised it is said, He
hath broken my covenant, Gen. xvii. 14. whereas the covenant of grace cannot be
broken; God will not break it, and men cannot; it is ordered in all things, and
sure, and is more immoveable than hills and mountains, Psalm. lxxxix. 34.
4. It is certain
it had things in it of a civil and temporal nature; as in a multiplication of
Abraham's natural seed, and a race of kings from him; a promise of his being
the Father of many nations, and a possession of the land of Canaan by his seed:
things that can have no place in the pure covenant of grace, and have nothing to
do with it, any more than the change of his name from Abram to Abraham.
5. There were
some persons included in it, who cannot be thought to belong to the covenant of
grace; as Ishmael, not in the same covenant with Isaac; and a profane Esau. On
the other hand, there were some who were living when this covenant of
circumcision was made, and yet were left out of it; who nevertheless,
undoubtedly, were in the covenant of grace; as Shem, Arphaxad, Melchizedek,
6. Nor is this
covenant the same with what is referred to in Gal. iii. 17. said to be
confirmed of God in Christ, which could not be disannulled by the law four
hundred and thirty years after; the distance of time between them does not
agree, but falls short of the apostle's date by twenty four years and therefore
must not refer to the covenant of circumcision, but to some other covenant and
time of making it; even to an exhibition and manifestation of the covenant of
grace to Abraham, about the time of his call out of Chaldea, Gen. xii. 3
7. The covenant
of grace was made with Christ, as the federal head of the elect in him from
everlasting, and who is the only head of that covenant, and of the covenant
ones: if the covenant of grace was made with Abraham, as the head of his
natural and spiritual seed, Jews and Gentiles; there must be two heads of the
covenant of grace, contrary to the nature of such a covenant, and the whole
current of scripture; yea, the covenant of grace, as it concerns the spiritual
seed of Abraham, and spiritual blessings for them; it, and the promises of it,
were made to Christ, Gal. iii. 16. No mere man is capable of covenanting with
God; the covenant of grace is not made with any single man and much less with
him on the behalf of others: whenever we read of it as made with a particular
person or persons, it is always to be understood of the manifestation and
application of it, and of its blessings and promises to them.
8. Allowing
Abraham's covenant to be a peculiar one, and of a mixed kind, containing
promises of temporal things to him, and his natural seed, and of spiritual
things to his spiritual seed; or rather, that there was at the same time when
the covenant of circumcision was given to Abraham and his natural seed, a fresh
manifestation of the covenant of grace made with him and his spiritual seed in
Christ. That the temporal blessings of it belonged to his natural seed, is no
question; but that the spiritual blessings belong to all Abraham's seed, after
the flesh, and to all the natural seed of believing Gentiles, must be denied :
if the covenant of grace was made with all Abraham's seed according to the
flesh, then it was made with his more immediate offspring, with a mocking,
persecuting Ishmael, and with a profane Esau, and with all his remote posterity
; with them who believed not, and whose carcases fell in the wilderness; with
the ten tribes who revolted from the pure worship of God; with the Jews in
Isaiah's time, a seed of evil-doers, whose rulers are called the rulers of
Sodom, and the people the people of Gomorrah; with the scribes and pharisees,
that wicked and adulterous generation in the times of Christ: but what serious
thoughtful man, who knows any thing of the covenant of grace, can admit of
this? see Rom. ix. 6, 7.
It is only a
remnant, according to the election of grace, who are in this covenant; and if
all the natural seed of Abraham are not in this covenant, it can scarcely be
thought that all the natural seed of believing Gentiles are; it is only some of
the one and some of the other, who are in the covenant of grace; and this
cannot be known until they believe, when they appear to he Abraham's spiritual
seed; and it must he right to put off their claim to any supposed privilege arising
from covenant-interest, until it is plain they have one ; if all the natural
seed of Abraham, as such, and all the natural seed of believing Gentiles, as
such, are in the covenant of grace; since all they that are in it, and none but
they are in it, who are the chosen of God, the redeemed of the Lamb, and will
be called by grace, and sanctified, and persevere in faith and holiness, and be
eternally glorified; then the natural seed of Abraham and of believing
Gentiles, must be all chosen to grace and glory, and be redeemed by the blood
of Christ from sin, law, hell, and death ; they must all have new hearts and
spirits given them, and the fear of God put into their hearts; must be
effectually called, their sins forgiven them, their persons justified by the
righteousness of Christ, and they persevere in grace to the end, and be for
ever glorified; see Jer. xxxi. 33, 34. and xxxii. 40. Ezek. xxxvi. 25, 26,
27-Rom. viii. 30. But who will venture to assert all this of the one, or of the
other? And after all,-
9 If their
covenant interest could be ascertained, that gives no right to an ordinance,
without a positive order and direction from God. It gave no right to
circumcision formerly, for on the one hand there were persons living when that
ordinance was appointed, who had an undoubted interest in the covenant of
grace; as Shem, Arphaxad, Lot, and others, on whom circumcision was not
enjoined, and they had no right to use it : on the other hand, there have been
many of whom it cannot be said they were in the covenant of grace, and yet were
obliged to it. And so covenant-interest gives no right to baptism; could it be
proved, as it cannot, that all the infant seed of believers, as such, are in
the covenant of grace, it would give them no right to baptism, without a com
mand for it; the reason is, because a person may be in covenant, and as yet not
have the pre-requisite to an ordinance, even faith in Christ, and a profession
of it, which are necessary both to Baptism and the Lord's Supper; and if
covenant-interest gives a right to the one, it would to the other.--
10.
Notwithstanding all this pother made about Abraham's covenant, Gen. xvii. it
was not made with him and his infant seed; but with him and his adult
offspring; it was they in all after ages to the coming of Christ, whether
believers or unbelievers, who were enjoined to circumcise their infant-seed,
and not all of them, only their males: it was not made with Abraham's
infant-seed, who could not circumcise themselves, but their parents were by
this covenant obliged to circumcise them ; yea, others, who were not Abraham's
natural seed, were obliged to it; "HE THAT IS EIGHT DAYS OLD SHALL BE
CIRCUMCISED AMONG YOU, WHICH IS NOT OF THY SEED", Gen. xvii. 12. Which
leads on to observe,
that nothing can
be concluded from the circumcision of Jewish infants, to the baptism of the
infants of believing Gentiles: had there been a like command for the baptism of
the infants of believing Gentiles, under the New Testament, as there was for
the circumcision of Jewish infants under the Old, the thing would not have
admitted of any dispute; but nothing of this kind appears. For,
l, It is not
clear that even Jewish infants were admitted into covenant by the rite of
circumcision ; from whence it is pleaded, that the infants of believers are
admitted into it by baptism; for Abraham's female seed were taken into the
covenant made with him, as well as his male seed, but not by any visible rite
or ceremony; nor were his male seed admitted by any such rite; not by
circumcision, for they were not to be circumcised until the eighth day; to have
Circumcised them sooner would have been Criminal; and that they were in
covenant from their birth, I presume, will not be denied; as it was a national
covenant, so early they were in it; the Israelites, with their infants at
Horeb, had not been circumcised; nor were they when they entered into covenant
with the Lord their God, Deut. xxix. 10-15.-
2. Circumcision
was no seal of the covenant of grace under the former dispensation; nor is
baptism a seal of it under the present: had circumcision been a seal of it, the
covenant of grace must have been without one from Adam to Abraham: it is called
a Sign or token, but not a seal; it was a sign or mark in the flesh of Abraham's
natural seed, a typical sign of the pollution of human nature, and of the
inward circumcision of the heart; but no seal, confirming any spiritual
blessing of the covenant of grace to those who had this mark or sign; it is
indeed called, A seal of the righteousness of faith, Rom. iv. 11. but not a
seal to Abraham's natural seed of their interest in that righteousness, but
only to Abraham himself; it was a seal to him, a confirming sign, assuring him,
that the righteousness of faith, which he had before he was circumcised, should
come upon the uncircumcised believing Gentiles; and therefore it was continued
on his natural offspring, until that righteousness was preached unto, received
by, and imputed to believing Gentiles.
3. Nor did
baptism succeed circumcision ; there is no agreement between the one and the
other; not in the subjects, to whom they were administered; the use of the one
and the other is not the same; and the manner of administering them different;
baptism being administered to Jews and Gentiles, to male and female, and to
adult persons only: not so circumcision; the use of circumcision was to
distinguish the natural seed of Abraham from others; baptism is the badge of
the spiritual seed of Christ, and the answer of a good conscience towards God;
and represents the sufferings, burial, and resurrection of Christ; the one is
by blood, the other by water; and ordinances so much differing in their
subjects, use, and administration, the one can never be thought to come in the
room and place of the other. Besides, baptism was in use and force before
circumcision was abolished, which was not until the death of Christ; whereas,
the doctrine of baptism was preached, and the ordinance itself administered,
some years before that; now that which was in force before another is out of
date,can never with any propriety be said to succeed, or come in the room of
that other. Besides, if this was the case, as circumcision gave a right to the
Passover, so would baptism to the Lord's Supper; which yet is not admitted.
Now as there is
nothing to be gathered out of the Old Testament to countenance infant baptism,
so neither are there any passages in the New, which can be sup-ported in favour
of it.
1.Not the text
in Acts ii. 39. The promise is unto you and to your children, &c. It is
pretended, that this refers to the covenant made with Abraham, and to a
covenant~promise made to him, giving his infant children a right to the
ordinance of circumcision; and is urged as a reason with the Jews, why they and
their children ought to be baptized; and with the Gentiles, why they and theirs
should be also, when called into a church state. But,
1. There is not
the least mention made in the text, of Abraham's covenant, or of any promise
made to him, giving his infant seed a right to circumcision, and still less to
baptism; nor is there the least syllable of infant baptism; nor any hint of it,
from whence it can be concluded; nor by children are infants designed, but the
posterity of the Jews, who are frequently so called in scripture, though grown
up; and unless it be so understood in many places, strange interpretations must
be given of them; wherefore the argument from hence for paedobaptism is given
up by some learned men, as Dr. Hammond and others, as inconclusive.
2. The promise
here, be it what it may, is not observed as giving a right or claim to any
ordinance; but as an encouraging motive to persons in distress, under a sense
of sin, to repent of it, and declare their repentance, and yield a voluntary
subjection to the ordinance of baptism; when they might hope that remission of
sins would be applied to them, and they should receive a larger measure of the
grace of the Spirit; wherefore repentance and baptism are urged in order to the
enjoyment of the promise; and consequently must be understood of adult persons,
who only are capable of repentance, and of a voluntary subjection to baptism.
3. The promise
is no other than the promise of life and salvation by Christ, and of remission
of sins by his blood, and of an increase of grace from his Spirit; and whereas
the persons addressed had imprecated the guilt of the blood of Christ, they had
shed, upon their posterity, as well as on themselves, which distressed them;
they are told, for their relief, that the same promise would be made good to
their posterity also, provided they did as they were directed to do; and even
to all the Jews afar off, in distant countries and future ages, who should look
on Christ and mourn, repent and believe, and be baptized: and seeing the
Gentiles are sometimes described as those afar off, the promise may be thought
to reach to them who should be called by grace, repent, believe, and be
baptized also; but no mention is made of their children; and had they been
mentioned, the limiting clause, Even as many as the Lord our God shall call,
plainly points at and describe. the persons intended, whether Jews or Gentiles,
effectually called by grace, who are encouraged by the motive in the promise to
profess repentance, and submit to baptism; which can only be understood of
adult persons, and not of infants.
2. Nor Rom. xi.
16, &c. If the first fruits be holy, &C For,
-1. By the first
fruits, and lump, and by the root and branches, are not meant Abraham and his
posterity, or natural seed, as such ; but the first among the Jews who believed
in Christ, and laid the first foundation of a gospel church-state, and were
first incor porated into it; who being holy, were a pledge of the future
conversion and holiness of that people in the latter-day.
-2. Nor by the good
olive-tree, after-mentioned, is meant the Jewish church-state; which was
abolished by Christ, with all the peculiar ordinances of it; and the believing
Gentiles were never ingrafted into it ; the axe has been laid to the root of
that old Jewish stock, and it is entirely cut down, and no engrafture is made
upon it. But,
-3. By it is
meant the gospel-church-state, in its first foundation, consisting of Jews that
believed, out of which were left the Jews who believed not in Christ, and who
are the branches broken off; into which church- state the Gentiles were
received and engrafted: which engrafture, or coalition, was first made at
Antioch, when and hereafter the Gentiles partook of the root and fatness of the
olive-tree, enjoyed the same privileges, communicated in the same ordinances,
and were satisfied with the goodness and fatness of the house of God; and this
gospel-church may be truly called, by the converted Jews in the latter-day,
their own olive-tree, into which they will be engrafted; since the first
gospel-church was set up at Jerusalem, and gathered out of the Jews; and so in
other places, the first gospel-churches consisted of Jews, the first-fruits of
those converted ones. From the whole it appears, that there is not the least
syllable about baptism, much less of infant baptism, in the passage; nor can
any thing be concluded from hence in favour of it.
3 Nor from 1
Cor. vii. 14. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the
unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; else were your children unclean,
but now are they holy; which is by some understood of a federal holiness,
giving a claim to covenant privileges, and so to baptism. But,
~1. It should be
told what these covenant privileges are; since, as we have seen, covenant-interest
gives no right to any ordinance, without divine direction; nor is baptism a
seal of the covenant: it should be told what this covenant-holiness is, whether
imaginary or real; by some it is called reputed, and is distinguished from
internal holiness, which is rejected from being the sense of the text; but such
holiness can never qualify persons for a New Testament ordinance; nor has the
covenant of grace any such holiness belonging to it; that provides, by way of
promise, real holiness, signified by putting the laws of God in the heart, by
giving new hearts and new spirits, and by cleansing from all impurity, and
designs real, internal holiness, shown in an holy conversation; and such who
appear to have that, have an undoubted right to the ordinance of baptism, since
they have received the Spirit as a Spirit of sanctification, Acts x. 47. But
this cannot be meant in the text, seeing,
~2. It is such a
holiness as heathens may have; unbelieving husbands and wives are said to have
it, in virtue of their relation to believIng wives and husbands, and which is
prior to the holiness of their children, and on which theirs depends; but
surely such will not be allowed to have federal holiness, and yet it must be of
the same kind with their children's; if the holiness of the Children is a
federal holiness, that of the unbelieving parent must be so too, from whence is
the holiness of the children.
~3. If children,
by virtue of this holiness, have a claim to baptism, then much more their
unbelieving parents, since they are sanctified before them, by their believing
yokefellows, and are as near to them as their children; and if the holiness of
the one gives a right to baptism, why not the holiness of the other? and yet
the one are baptized, and the other not, though sanctified, and whose holiness
is the more near for the holiness spoken of, be it what it may, is derived from
both parents, believing and unbelieving; yea, the holiness of the children
depends upon the sanctification of the unbelieving parent; for if the
unbeliever is not sanctified, the children are unclean, and not holy. But
~4. These words
are to be understood of matrimonial holiness, even of the very act of marriage,
which, in the language of the Jews, is frequently expressed by being
sanctified; the Hebrew word " to sanctify", is used in innumerable
places in the Jewish writings, to espouse; and in the same sense the apostle
uses the Greek word here, and the words may be rendered, the unbelieving
husband is espoused, or married, to the wife, or rather, has been espoused, for
it relates to the act of marriage past, as valid; and the unbelieving wife has
been espoused to the husband; the preposition translated by, should be rendered
to, as it is in the very next verse; God hath called us " to peace";
the apostle's inference from it is, else were your children unclean,
illegitimate, if their parents were not lawfally espoused and married to each
other; but now are they holy, a holy and legirimate seed, as in Ezra ix. 2. see
Mal. ii. 15. and no other sense can be put upon the words, than of a legitimate
marriage and offspring; nothing else will suit with the case proposed to the
apostle, and with his answer to it, and reasoning about it; and which sense has
been allowed by many learned interpreters, ancient and modern; as Jerome,
Ambrose, Erasmus,Camerarius, Musculus, and others.
There are some
objections made to the practice of adult baptism, which are of little force,
and to which an answer may easily be returned.
1. That though
it may be allowed that Adult persons, such as repent and believe, are the
subjects of baptism, yet it is nowhere said, that they are the only ones but if
no others can be named as baptized, and the descriptive characters given in
scripture of baptized persons are such as can only agree with adults, and not
with infants; then it may be reasonably concluded, that the former only are the
proper subjects of baptism. 2. It is objected to our practice of baptizing the
adult offspring of Christians, that no scriptural instance of such a practice
can be given; and it is demanded of us to give an instance agreeable to our
practice ; since the first persons baptized were such as were converted either
from Judaism or from heathenism, and about the baptism of such adults, they
say, there is no controversy. But our practice is not at all concerned with the
parents of the persons baptized by us, whether they be Christians, Jews, Turks,
or Pagans ; but with the persons themselves, whether they are believers in
Christ or no; if they are the adult offspring of Christians, yet unbaptized, it
is no objection to us; and if they are not, it is no bar in the way of
admitting them to baptism, if they themselves are believers; many, and it may
be the greater part of such baptized by us are the adult offspring of those
who, without breach of charity, cannot be considered as Christians. As for the
first persons that were baptized, they were neither proselytes from Judaism nor
from Heathenism; but the offspring of Christians, of such that believed in the
Messiah; the saints before the coming of Christ, and at his coming, were as
good Christians as any that have lived since; so that those good men who lived
before Abraham, as far back as to the first man, and those that lived after
him, even to the coming of Christ, Eusebius observes, that if any should affirm
them to be Christians, though not in name, but in reality, he would not say
amiss. Judaism, at the time of Christ's coming, was the same with Christianity,
and not in opposition to it; so that there was no such thing as conversion from
Judaism to Christianity. Zachariah and Elizabeth, whose offspring John the
first baptizer was, and Mary, the mother of our Lord, who was baptized by John,
when adult, were as good Christians, and as strong believers in Jesus, as the
Messiah, as soon as born, and even when in the womb of the Virgin, as have been
since; and these surely must be allowed to be the adult offspring of
Christians; such were the apostles of Christ, and the first followers of him,
who were the adult offspring of such who believed iii the Messiah, and embraced
him upon the first notice of him, and cannot be said to be converted from
Judaism to Christianity ; Judaism not existing until the opposition to Jesus
being the Messiah became general and national; after that, indeed, those of the
Jewish nation who believed in Christ, may be said to be proselytes from Judaism
to Christianity, as the apostle Paul and others: and so converts made by the
preaching of the gospel among the Gentiles, were proselytes from Heathenism to
Christianity; but then it is unreasonable to demand of us instances of the
adult offspring of such being baptized, and added to the churches; since the
scripture history of the first churches contained in the Acts of the Apostles,
only gives an account of the first planting of these churches, and of the
baptism of those of which they first consisted; but not of the additions of
members to them in after-times; wherefore to give instances of those who were
born of them, and brought up by them, as baptized in adult years, cannot
reasonably be required of us: but on the other hand, if infant children were
admitted to baptism in these times, upon the faith and baptism of their
parents, and their becoming Christians; it is strange, exceeding strange, that
among the many thousands baptized in Jerusalem, Samaria, Corinth, and other
places, that there should be no one instance of any of them bringing their
children with them to be baptized, and claiming the privilege of baptism for
them upon their own faith; nor of their doing this in any short time after.
This is a case that required no length of time, and yet not a single instance
can be produced.
-3. It is
objected, that no time can be assigned when infants were cast out of covenant,
or cut off from the seal of it. If by the covenant is meant the covenant of
grace, it should be first proved that they are in it, as the natural seed of
believers, which cannot be done; and when that is, it is time enough to talk of
their being cast out, when and how. If by it is meant Abraham's covenant, the
covenant of circumcision, the answer is, the cutting off was when circumcision
ceased to be an ordinance of God, which was at the death of Christ: if by it is
meant the national covenant of the Jews, the ejection of Jewish parents, with
their children, was when God wrote a Lo-ammi upon that people, as a body
politic and ecclesiastic ; when he broke his covenant with them, signified by
breaking his two staves, beauty and bands.
-4. A clamorous
outcry is made against us, as abridging the privileges of infants, by denying
baptism to them making them to be lesser under the gospel dispensation than
under the law, and the gospel dispensation less glorious. But as to the gospel
dispensation, it is the more glorious for infants being left out of its
church-state ; that is, for its being not national and carnal, as before; but
congregational and spiritual ; consisting not of infants, without
understanding, but of rational and spiritual men, believers in Christ; and
these not of a single country, as Judea, but in all parts of the world:and as
for infants, their privileges now are many and better, who are eased from the
painful rite of circumcision ; it is a rich mercy, and a glorious privilege of
the gospel, that the believing Jews and their children are delivered from it;
and that the Gentiles and theirs are not obliged to it; which would have bound
them over to rulfil the whole law; to which may be added, that being born of
Christian parents, and having a Christian education, and of having
opportunities of hearing the gospel, is they grow up; and that not in one
country only, but in many; are greater privileges than the Jewish children had
inder the former dispensation.
~~5. It is
objected, that there are no more express commands in scripture for keeping the
first day of the week as a sabbath ; nor for women's partaking of the Lord's
supper, and other things, than for the baptism of infants. As for the first,
though there is no express precept for the observance of it, yet there are precedents
of its being observed for religious services, Acts xx. 7. Cor. xvi. 1, 2. and
though we have no example of infant baptism, yet if there were scriptural
precedents of it, we should think ourselves obliged to follow them. as for
women's right to partake of the Lord's supper, we have sufficient proof of it;
since these were baptized as well as men; and having a right to one ordinance,
as to another, and were members of the first church, communicated with it, and
women, as well as men, were added to it, Acts viii. 12. and i. 14. and v.1, 14.
we have a precept for it; Let a man,
a word of the
common gender, and signifies both man and woman, examine him or herself, and so
let him or her eat, 1 Cor. xi. 29. see Gal. ~li. 28. and we have also examples
of it in Mary the mother of our Lord, and other women, who, with the disciples,
constituted the gospel-church at Jerusalem and as they continued with one
accord in the apostles' doctrine and in prayer, so in fellowship and in
breaking of bread , let the same proof be given of the baptism of infants and
it will be admitted.
6 Antiquity is
urged in favour of infant baptism it is pretended that this is a tradition of
the church received from the apostles though of this no other proof is given,
but the testimony of Origen, none before that, and this is taken, not from any
of his genuine Greek writings, only from some Latin translations, confessedly
interpolated, and so corrupted, that it is owned, one is at a loss to find
Origen in Origen. No mention is made of this practice in the first two
centuries, no instance given of it until the third, when Tertullian is the
first who spoke of it, and at the same time spoke against it. And could it be
carried up higher, it would be of no force, unless it could be proved from the
sacred scriptures, to which only we appeal, and by which the thing in debate is
to be judged and determined. We know that innovations and corruptions very
early obtained, and even in the times of the apostles: and what is pretended to
be near those times, is the more to be suspected as the traditions of the false
apostles ; ii the antiquity of a custom, is no proof of the truth and
genuineness of it ; i3 The customs of the people are vain, Jer. x. 3. I proceed
to consider,
Foui.thly, The
way and neanner of baptizing; and to prove, that it is by immersion, plunging
the body in water, and covering it with it. Custom, and the common use of
writing in this controversy, have so far prevailed, that for the most part
immersion is usually called the mode of baptism; whereas it is properly baptism
itself; to say that immersion or dipping is the mode of baptism, is the same
thing as to say, that dipping is the mode of dipping; for as Sir John Floyer
observes,
"Immersion
is no circumstance, but the very act of baptism, used by our Saviour and his
disciples, in the institution of baptism." And Calvin expressly says,
"The word
baptizing signifies to plunge; and it is certain, that the rite of plunging was
used by the ancient churches." And as for sprinkling, that cannot, with
any propriety, be called a mode of baptism; for itwould be just such good sense
as to say, sprinkling is the mode of dipping, since baptism and dipping are the
same; hence the learned Selden,who in the former part of his life, might have
seen infants dipped in fonts, but lived to see immersion much disused, had
reason to say, " In England, of late years, I ever thought the parson
baptized his own fingers rather than the child," because he dipped the
one, and sprinkled the other. That baptism is immersion, or the dipping of a
person inwater, and covering him with it is to be proved,
1. From the
proper and primary signification of the word baptize, which in its first and
primary sense, signifies to dip or plunge into; and so it is rendered by our
best lexicographers, mergo, immergo, dip or plunge into. And in a secondary and
consequential sense, abluo, lavo, wash, because what is dipped is washed, there
being no proper washing but by dipping; but never perfundo or aspergo, pour or
sprinkle; so the lexicon published by Constantine, Budaeus, &c. and those
of Hadrian Junius, Plantinus, Scapula, Stephens, Schrevelius, Stockius, and
others; besides a great number of critics; as Beza, Casaubon, Witsius, &C
which might be produced. By whose united testimonies the thing is out of
question. Had our translators, instead of adopting the Greek word baptize in
all places where the ordinance of baptism is made mention of, truly translated
it, and not have left it untrans lated, as they have, the controversy about the
manner of baptizing would have been at an end, or rather have been prevented;
had they used the word dip, instead of: baptize, as they should have done,
there would have been no room for a question about it.
--2. That
baptism was performed by immersion, appears by the places chosen for the
administration of it; as the river Jordan by John, where he baptized many, and
where our Lord himself was baptized by him, Matt. lii. 6, 13, 16. but why
should he choose the river to baptize in, and baptize in it, if he did not
administer the ordinance by immersion? had it been done any other way, there
was no occasion for any confluence of wate; much less a river; a basin of water
would have sufficed. John also, it is said, was baptizing in Aenon, near
Salini, because there was much water, John iii. 23. which was convenient for
baptism, for which this reason is given; and not for conveniency for drink for
men and their cattle, which is not expressed nor implied; from whence we may
gather, as Calvin on the text does, "That baptism was performed by John
and Christ, by plunging the whole body underwater;" and so
Piscator,Aretius, Grotius, and others on the same passage.
-3. That this
was the way in which it was anciently administered, is clear from several
instances of baptism recorded in scripture, and the circumstances attending
them; as that of our Lord, of whom it is said, That when he was baptized he
went up straightway out of the water, which supposes he had been in it; and so
Piscator infers from his going up out of it, that therefore he went down into
it, and was baptized in the river itself; of which going down there would have
been no need, had the ordinance been administered to him in another way, as by
sprinkling or pouring a little water on his head, he and John standing in the
midst of the river, as the painter and engraver ridiculously describe it: and
certain it is, he was then baptized in Jordan; the evangelist Mark says in
Jordan, Mark i. 9. not at the banks of Jordan, but into the waters of it. for
which reason he went into it, and when' baptized came up out of it, not from
it, but out it;Luke iv. 35, 41. So the preposition is used in the Septuagint
version of Psalm xl. 2. ,as several lexicographers from Xenophon observe. The
baptism of the eunuch is another instance of baptism by immersion; when he and
Philip were come unto a certain water, to the water-side, which destroys a
little piece of criticism, as if their going into the water, after expressed,
was no other than going to the brink of the water, to the water-side, whereas
they were come to that before; and baptism being agreed upon, they went down
both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him; and when
they were come up out of the water, &c Now we do not reason merely from the
circumstance of going down into, and coming up out of the water; we know that
persons may go down into water, and come up out of it, and never be immersed in
it; but when it is expressly said, upon these persons going down into the
water, that Philip baptized, or dipped, the eunuch; and when this was done,
that both came up out of it, these circumstances strongly corroborate, without
the explanation of the word baptized, that it was performed by immersion; for
these circumstances cannot agree with any other way of administering it but
that; for a man can hardly be thought to be in his senses who can imagine
Philip went down with the eunuch into the water to sprinkle Or pour a little
water on him, and then gravely came out of it; hence, as the above learned
commentator, Calvin, on the text says, " Here we plainly see what was the
manner of baptizing with the ancients, for they plunged the whole body into the
water; now custom obtaining, that the minister only sprinkles the body or the
head." So Barnabas, an apostolic writer of the first century, and who is
mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, as a companion of the Apostle Paul,
describes baptism by going down into and by coming up out of the water; "
We descend," says he, " into the water full of sin and filth; and we
ascend, bringing forth fruit in the heart, having fear and hope in Jesus,
through the Spirit." by
4.The end of
baptism, which is to represent the burial of Christ, cannot be answered in any
other way than by immersion or covering the body in water; that baptism is an
emblem of the burial of Christ, is clear from Rom. vi 4. Col. ii.12. It would
be endless to quote the great number, even of paedobaptist writers, who
ingenuously acknowledge the the allusion in these passages, is to the ancient
rite of baptism by immersion: as none but such who are dead are buried, so none
but such who are dead to sin, and to the law, by the body of Christ, or who
profess to be so, are to be buried in and by baptism, or to be baptized; and as
none can be proprly said to be buried, unless put under ground, and covered
with earth; so none can be said to be baptized, but such who are put under
water, and covered with it; and nothing short of this can be a representation
of the burial of Christ, and of ours with him; not sprinkling, or pouring a
little water on the face; for a corpse cannot be said to buried when only a
little earth or djut is sprinkled or poured on it.
5.
This may be concluded from the various figurative and typical baptisms spoken
of in scripture. As,~1.) From the waters of the flood, which Tertuillian calls
the baptism of the world, and of which the apostle Peter makes baptism the
antitype, 1 Pet. iii. 20, 21. The ark in which Noah and his family were saved
by water, was God's ordinance; it was made according to the pattern he gave to
Noah, as baptism is; and as that was the object of the scorn of men, so is the
ordinance of baptism, rightly administered; and as it represented a burial,
when Noah and his family were shut up in it, so baptism; and when the fountains
of the great deep were broken up below, and the windows of heaven were opened
above, the ark with those in it, were as it were covered with and immersed in
water; and so was a figure of baptism by immersion: and as there were none but
adult persons in the ark, who were saved by water in it, so none but adult
persons are the proper subjects of water-baptism; and though there were few who
were in the ark, it was attended with a salutary effect to them, they were
saved by water; so such who truly believe in Christ, and are baptized, shall be
saved, and that by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, which was typified by the
coming of Noah and his family out of the ark; to which baptism, as the
antitype, corresponds, being an emblem of the same, Rom. vi. 4, 5. Col. Ii. 12.
~2.) From the passage of the Israelitesunder the cloud and through the Red Sea
when they were said to be baptized by Moses in the cloud and in the sea