·
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 Lydia and her household, Acts xvi. 14,
15. but in what state of life Lydia was is not certain, whether single or
married, whether maid, widow, or wife; and if married, whether she then had any
children, or ever had any; and if she had, and they living, whether they were
infants or adults; and if infants, it does not seem probable that she should
bring them along with her from her native place, Thyatira to Philippi, where
she seems to have been upon business, and so had hired a house during her stay
there; wherefore her household seems to have consisted of menial servants she
brought along with her, to assist her in her business: and certain it is, that
those the apostles found in her house, when they entered into it, after they
came out of prison, were such as are called, brethren, and were capable of
being comforted by them; which supposes them to have been in some distress and
trouble, and needed comfort.
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, Lot, and others; wherefore this can never be
the pure covenant of grace.
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