Chapter X: Front Matter (10)

1. Negatively. They do not become effectual means of salvation by any power in themselves to answer this end; for we are not to suppose, that they are more than ordinances, by which God works those graces which we receive under them; which it is his prerogative alone to confer. Again, it is farther observed, that this privilege is not derived from the piety or intention of them by whom the sacraments are administered; who, though they are styled _stewards of the mysteries of God_, 1 Cor. iv. 1. as persons to whom the administration thereof is committed; yet they have not the least power to confer that grace which is Christ’s gift and work: Thus the apostle says, _Who then is Paul, or who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave unto every man_, chap. iii. 5.[55]

This is contrary to what the Papists maintain, who suppose that the efficacy of the sacraments arises, partly from an internal virtue which there is in them, to confer grace, (which they illustrate by a far-fetched similitude, taken from the virtue which there is in food, to nourish the body, which is nothing to the purpose, since no external act of religion can have a tendency to nourish the soul, without the internal efficacious grace of the Spirit accompanying it;) and partly from the design or intention of the priest that administers them, as they are consecrated and designed, by him, for that end.

There is also an absurd notion which is maintained by some Protestants, as well as the Papists, _viz._ that the sacrament of baptism, administered to infants, washes away the guilt of original sin, and gives them a right and title to heaven, so that by virtue thereof they are saved, if they happen to die before they commit actual sin: But this account of the manner in which the sacraments become effectual to salvation, is absurd to the last degree; for it puts a sanctifying and saving virtue into that which is no more than an outward and ordinary means of grace. And as to what respects the efficacy of the sacraments, arising from the intention of him that administers them; that is, to lay the whole stress of our salvation on the secret design of men, in whose power it is supposed to be, to render or prevent these ordinances from being means of grace; which is in the highest degree derogatory to the glory of God.

2. Positively. The sacraments become effectual means of salvation only by the working of the Holy Ghost, and the blessing of Christ, by whom they were instituted. As, _without Christ we can do nothing_, John xv. 5. so without his blessing we can receive nothing. Ordinances are only the channel through which grace is conveyed; but Christ is the author and finisher of faith; and this he does by his Spirit, when he brings the heart into a good frame, and excites suitable acts of faith and love in those who are engaged in those ordinances, and maintains the lively impressions thereof, which have a tendency to promote the work of grace in the whole conduct of their lives.

III. We proceed to consider, what sacraments Christ has instituted under the New Testament-dispensation. It hath pleased God, in every age of the world, to instruct his people by sacramental signs, as an addition to those other ways, in which he communicates his mind and will to them. Even our first parents, in their state of innocency, had the tree of life; which was a sacrament or ordinance for their faith, that if they retained their integrity, and performed the conditions of the covenant which they were under, they might hereby be led into a farther conviction that they should certainly attain the blessings promised therein: And, some think, that the tree of knowledge, of good and evil, was another sacramental sign, whereby they were given to understand, that if they sinned, they should die. And paradise, in which they were placed, was a sacrament, or a kind of type of the heavenly state; inasmuch as there is an allusion to it in that promise, _to him that overcometh, will I give to eat of the tree of life, that is in the midst of the paradise of God_, Rev. ii. 7. and heaven is, in another place called paradise, Luke xxiii. 43. Others think the Sabbath was a sacramental sign to our first parents, of that eternal sabbatism which they should celebrate in a better world, in case they yielded perfect obedience as being the condition of the covenant they were under. However, I desire not to be too peremptory as to this matter; it is enough to my present purpose, to consider the tree of life as a sacrament; whereby it appears, that God instituted such signs from the beginning of the world: But this having been insisted on elsewhere[56], we pass it over, and proceed to consider,

That, after the fall of man, there were sacramental signs, instituted as ordinances for the faith of the church in the promised Messiah; especially sacrifices, which signified their expectation that he would make atonement for sin, by the shedding of his blood. Under the ceremonial law there was a large body of sacramental ordinances, or institutions, otherwise called, types of Christ, and the way of salvation by him; some of which were occasional; as manna, the water of the rock, and the brazen serpent in the wilderness, _&c._ others were standing ordinances in the church, as long as the ceremonial law continued; as circumcision, the passover, and many things contained in the temple-service. These were the sacraments under the Old Testament: But, having taken occasion to speak something concerning them elsewhere[57], I shall confine myself to those sacraments which Christ has instituted under the New Testament; which are only two, baptism, and the Lord’s supper.

The Papists, indeed, have added five more to them, though without a divine warrant; to give countenance to which, they pervert the sense of some scriptures, occasionally brought for that purpose. One of the sacraments which they have added, is, what they call _holy orders_; whereby they authorize persons to perform the office of priests, or deacons: This they do by the imposition of hands, and at the same time pretend to confer the Holy Ghost: The former, they suppose to be the sign, the latter the thing signified; but this was not designed to be a sacrament given to the church; for the sacraments are ordinances that belong to all believers, and not only ministers. And, as for the imposition of hands, whether it be considered as an ancient form of praying for a blessing on persons, or as used in setting others apart to an office; it seems principally to have respect to these extraordinary gifts, which they expected to qualify them for the discharge thereof; which gifts being now ceased, the imposition of hands cannot be reckoned a sacramental sign; and the blessing conferred, to wit, the Holy Ghost, from whom they received those extraordinary gifts, is no longer to be signified thereby.

Another sacrament which the Papists add, is that of _confirmation_; by which they pretend, that children, who, in baptism, were made members of Christ, are strengthened and confirmed in the faith; and receive the Holy Ghost, in order to their performing their baptismal vow: But, whatever engagement they are laid under, by this ordinance, it is God alone that can confirm or strengthen, and enable them to walk answerable thereunto; which is a grace not in the power of man to bestow, nor can it be by any ordinance.

Another sacrament they speak of, is _pennance_; in which, after auricular confession made to the priest, and some external marks of sorrow expressed by the penitent, he is to perform some difficult service enjoined, which they call pennance; whereby he makes satisfaction for his sins, upon which, he is absolved from them. But this is an abominable practice, by which persons are rather hardened in sin, than delivered from it. It is derogatory to Christ’s satisfaction, and has not the least appearance of a sacrament, or ordinance of God’s appointment.

Another sacrament that they have added, is _extreme unction_; taken from James v. 14, 15. where the apostle speaks of sick persons being _anointed with oil in the name of the Lord_; and it is said, _the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up_; and, if he has committed _sins_, they shall be _forgiven him_. But to this it may be replied, that though this practice of anointing the sick with oil, was observed in the first age of the church, while the miraculous gift of healing was continued; yet it is now ceased; therefore no such significant sign is to be used. And, as for forgiveness of sins, mentioned by the apostle that seems not to have been conferred by the use of that sign; but it was humbly expected and hoped for, as an answer of prayer: It is therefore a very preposterous thing to reckon this among the sacraments, under the gospel dispensation.

Another Sacrament that the Papists add, is that of _matrimony_; for which, they have very little shadow of reason; but, because, they suppose, the apostle calls it _a great mystery_, Eph. v. 32. which word, the Greek church used to signify a sacrament: But he does not intend hereby, that marriage is a mystery; but the union between Christ and his church, which is illustrated by the conjugal union, is so called[58]; and, indeed, it is not an ordinance given to the church, but to mankind in general, heathens as well as Christians. Therefore nothing can be more absurd than to suppose, that it is one of the sacraments Christ hath instituted in the gospel-church; and, according to their opinion, the priests are excluded from this sacrament, inasmuch as they are forbidden to marry, as the laity are excluded from the sacrament of holy orders; so that when they pretend to add to those institutions, which Christ hath given to the church, or invent sacraments, which he hath not ordained, they betray not only their own folly, but bold presumption; therefore we must conclude, that there are only two sacraments that Christ hath given to his church, to wit, baptism, and the Lord’s supper; which are particularly considered in some following answers.

Footnote 52:

Sacrament is the word used by the Vulgate for mystery, and this is a
much more probable meaning of the term as used by the early
christians.

Footnote 53:

Και σημειον ελαβε περιτομης, σφραγιδα της δικαιοσυνης της πίστεως.

Footnote 54:

_When these two are distinguished by divines, the one is generally
called, signum significans; the other signum confirmans; or, the
former is said, significare; the latter, obsignare._

Footnote 55:

It were to be wished, the inspired books had been more generally
honoured, as the only sufficient rule of judgment, by those who have
wrote in favor of episcopacy, upon the plan of a DIVINE RIGHT; and the
rather, as they speak of it, not merely as an institution of the
gospel, but an essentially necessary one: insomuch, that gospel
ordinances will be invalid, unless administered by those, who have
been episcopally vested with holy orders.

In a matter of such momentous concern, they would not have acted an
unworthy part, if they had confined their pleas to the sacred
writings; producing such passages from them as speak to the point, not
implicitly and darkly; but in peremptory and express terms, so as to
leave no reasonable room for hesitation or doubt. It would be
dishonourary to the BIBLE, and a gross reflection on the penman of it,
to call that an “appointment of Christ,” and an “essentially
necessary” one, which is not contained in this sacred volume, and with
such clearness and precision, that sober and impartial inquirers may
readily perceive it to be there, without foreign help to assist their
sight. And yet, such help is made necessary by episcopal writers. They
scarce ever fail of turning us to the FATHERS in vindication of their
cause; hereby virtually reflecting disgrace on the scriptures, as
though they were insufficient, simply of themselves, to bring this
controversy to an issue.

In order to reconcile the appeal that is so often made to the FATHERS
with that honour which is due to the scriptures, the episcopalian plea
is, that they consider these fathers, not as _judges_, but _witnesses_
only in their cause. But what are they brought to witness? Is it, that
episcopacy is an institution of Jesus Christ? If this is witnessed to
in the sacred books, of which we, having these in our hands, are as
good judges as they, it is sufficient. There is no need of any foreign
testimony. If it is not, no other testimony can supply this defect.
Are these fathers cited as witnesses to what was the practice in their
day? This is now generally the pretence. They may, say the
episcopalians, be properly appealed to, in order to know the truth of
FACT in the ages in which they lived. And if, from their unanimous
testimony, even from the first days of Christianity, it appears, that
GOVERNING and ordaining AUTHORITY was exercised by Bishops ONLY, in
distinction from Presbyters, and as an order in the church above them,
it would argue great arrogance, if not obstinate perverseness, to
dispute the divine original of episcopacy. But we must be excused,
however perverse we may be accounted, if we cannot bring ourselves to
think, that the practice of the church, since the apostles’ days,
however universal, will justify our receiving that as an institution
of Christ, and an essentially important one, which he himself hath not
clearly and evidently made so, either in his own person, or by those
inspired writers, whom he commissioned and instructed to declare his
will: nor can we believe the great Author of christianity would have
put the professors of it to the difficult, I may say, as to most of
them, the impossible task of collecting any thing essential to their
salvation from the voluminous records of antiquity. We are rather
persuaded, he has ordered every article that is necessary, either in
point of faith or practice, to be so fairly and legibly wrote by the
sacred penman, as that there should be no need of having recourse to
the ancient Fathers as WITNESSES, any more than judges, to ascertain
his mind. To suppose the contrary, would, in reality of construction,
substitute TRADITION the rule of essential truth, in the room of the
SCRIPTURES, which were “given by inspiration of God;” or, at least
make the former so much a part of this rule, as that the latter,
without it, would not be sufficiently complete. Such dishonour ought
not to be cast on the one only standard of the real mind of Christ.

The Bishop, in whose defence an appeal is made to antiquity, is not
related, by his office, to a single congregation of christians only,
with one or more Presbyters belonging to it; but his charge is a
diocess, consisting of a number of congregations, greater or less,
with their respective Presbyters. The inquiry therefore is, whether it
be an UNIVERSALLY ATTESTED FACT, that episcopacy, in this sense, took
place in, and through, the two first ages? A Bishop, at the head of a
number of congregations, greater or less, is an officer in the church
of Christ quite different from the pastor of a single congregation;
though he should be called Bishop, as being the HEAD-PRESBYTER, or
vested with the character of PRIMUS INTER PARES. It should be
particularly noted, which of these kinds of episcopacy has the voice
of the specified antiquity in its favour. It is willingly left with
every man of common understanding, after he has gone over the
following testimonies, to say, whether he thinks, that Bishops, after
the DIOCESAN-MODE, were known in the first ages of the church?

The Bishop, for whom the fathers are called in as WITNESSES, is an
officer in the church of an ORDER SUPERIOR to that of Presbyters, and
as distinct from it as the order of Presbyters is from that of
Deacons; the pretence being this, that Presbyters were thought to
have, in primitive times, no more right to meddle with the peculiar
work of Bishops, than Deacons have to concern themselves with the
peculiar work of Presbyters. The question therefore is, Whether it
will appear from the following evidence, to be at all a FACT, much
less an UNIVERSALLY known, and certainly attested one, that there were
Bishops, in this sense, in any church, in any part of the christian
world, within the two first centuries?

The Bishop, in whose favour the ancient Fathers are said universally
to speak, is one to whom the EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF GOVERNMENT has been
committed by the appointment of Jesus Christ, or his apostles as
commissioned by him. Says the famous Bishop Hoadly, treating of the
government of the church, as belonging to Bishops only, in the above
appropriated sense, “And here—I think I may say, that we have as
universal and as unanimous a testimony of all writers, and historians
from the apostles’ days, as could reasonably be expected or desired:
every one, who speaks of the government of the church, in any place,
witnessing, that episcopacy was the settled form; and every one, who
hath occasion to speak of the original of it, tracing it up to the
apostles’ days, and fixing it upon their decree.—Were there only
testimonies to be produced, that this was the government of the church
in all ages, it would be but reasonable to conclude it of apostolical
institution;—but when we find the same persons witnessing, not only
that it was episcopal, but that it was of apostolical institution, and
delivered down from the beginning as such, this adds weight to the
matter, and makes it more undoubted. So that here are two points to
which they bear witness, that this was the government of the church in
their days, and that it was of apostolical institution. And in these
there is such a constancy and unanimity, that even St. Jerom himself
traces up episcopacy to the very apostles, and makes it of their
institution.”—He adds, “All churches and christians, as far as we
know, seem to have been agreed, in this point, amidst all their other
differences, as universally as can well be imagined.” One would
suppose, from the peremptory manner in which this citation is
expressed, that the FACT it affirms was so evidently clear, as to
leave no room for the least doubt. Those, who may think it worth while
to look over the _testimonies_ brought to view, in the following
pages, will perhaps, by critically observing their real and just
import, be surprized, that any man of learning, who professes a regard
to truth, should speak of it, and with such a degree of assurance, as
the UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF ALL AGES from the apostles, that
episcopacy, in the impleaded sense, was the “form of government in the
church in their day,” and that it was by “apostolical institution;”
especially, if they should not be able to find, as it is certain they
will not, so much as a single witness, for two hundred years, whose
evidence is clear, direct, express, and full, in affirming, either
that this was the form of government in the church, or that it was
ever instituted by Christ, or his apostles: so far is it from the
truth, that this is a FACT UNANIMOUSLY and CONSTANTLY TESTIFIED TO,
even from the beginning, and through all ages.

The Bishop, for the support of whose claims antiquity is repaired to,
is one with whom the SOLE POWER of ORDINATION is lodged; insomuch,
that he only can convey holy orders conformably to the appointment of
Jesus Christ; and should Presbyters presume to do this, they would
take that upon them which they have no more a right to, than Deacons
have to baptise, or administer the Lord’s supper. This part of the
UNANIMOUS report of ALL AGES concerning the EXCLUSIVE RIGHT of Bishops
deserves most of all the special notice of the reader; and he is
particularly desired, as he goes along, to point out to himself, for
his own satisfaction; or to others, for their information, any one
among all the testimonies he will have placed before his view, that
plainly and directly affirms the RIGHT OF ORDINATION to be peculiar to
Bishops as a distinct order from Presbyters, and superior to them; or
that this right was ever thus exercised by them. If he should not be
able to do this, as unquestionably he will not, how strange must that
affirmation appear, which says in the most positive terms, not only
that this is FACT, but a fact CONSTANTLY and UNANIMOUSLY witnessed to
by the fathers, in ALL AGES from the days of the apostles.

The Bishop, in whose defence antiquity is pleaded, is vested with the
power of CONFIRMATION, according to the mode of the church of England;
and it is appropriated to him as his right in distinction from all
others. But I need not assure the reader, he will in vain look to find
it a FACT, within the two first ages, that Bishops were either vested
with, or ever exercised this power. For he must come down below these
ages, before a word is said, by any one of the fathers, relative to
this superstitious practice. Tertullian is the first that mentions it;
and he mentions likewise some other corruptions, which had got mingled
with christianity in that day.

In short, the question in debate, so far as it relates to FACT, is,
not whether there were officers in the christian church, known by the
name of Bishops in the apostolic age, and down along through the two
first centuries? We join with the episcopalians in affirming this to
be a truth universally testified to in those times: but the proper
question is, what is FACT with reference to the ORDER of these
Bishops, and the POWERS PECULIAR TO THEIR OFFICE, and as EXERCISED by
them in it? The name of Bishop is one thing, and the POWER claimed
for, or exercised by him, is another. The dispute is, not about the
name, but the power appropriated to it. This therefore should be
heedfully attended to by all, in their examination of the evidences
that will be produced; and they may, in this way, clearly and
satisfactorily determine, each one for himself, whether it be at all
an attested FACT, much less a CONSTANT and UNANIMOUSLY ATTESTED ONE,
from the apostles days, and down along through the two first ages, as
well as after ones, that Bishops were vested with, and did actually
exercise, the above specified powers, which are at this day claimed
for them, as the appropriate work of their office by divine
appointment?

CHAUNCY’S VIEW OF EPISCOPACY.

Footnote 56:

_See vol. II. page 86._

Footnote 57:

_See vol. III. page 424-426. and vol. II. page 205._

Footnote 58:

_See Vol. III. p. 12._

Quest. CLXV.

QUEST. CLXV. _What is baptism?_

ANSW. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, wherein Christ
hath ordained the washing with water, in the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, to be a sign and seal of
ingrafting into himself, of remission of sins by his blood, and
regeneration by his Spirit; of adoption and resurrection unto
everlasting life; and whereby the parties baptized are solemnly
admitted into the visible church, and enter into an open and
professed engagement, to be wholly and only the Lord’s.

The method in which we shall endeavour to explain this answer shall be,

I. To prove that baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, instituted by Christ, in which there is to be, some way or other, the application of water.

II. That this is to be performed in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. And,

III. What is signified therein, and what engagements are laid upon the person baptized.

I. To prove that baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, instituted by Christ, in which there is to be, some way or other, the application of water. Here let it be considered,

1. That there must be the application of water; and that either by dipping the person that is to be baptized into the water, or by pouring or sprinkling water upon him; otherwise it doth not answer the proper and literal sense of the word _baptize_.[59] It is true, we sometimes find the word used in a metaphorical sense; as when our Saviour speaks of the _baptism_ that he _was to be baptized with_, Matt. xx. 22. Luke xii. 50. whereby he intends the sufferings he was to endure in shedding his blood upon the cross: And it is elsewhere taken, by a metonymy, for the conferring the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost, which they were given to expect after Christ’s ascension into heaven, and the apostles were first made partakers of at the day of Pentecost, which immediately followed it; wherein there appeared unto them cloven tongues, like as of fire, that sat upon each of them, as a sign that they should be filled with the Holy Ghost, and speak with other tongues, and be enflamed with a holy zeal for Christ’s glory and interest; which was accordingly fulfilled, and seems to be the sense of the word baptism, as taken in this figurative sense; but we understand the word in the most proper sense thereof; and therefore suppose that it must be performed with water.

As to what respects the mode of baptism, or the application of water, whether the water is to be applied to the person baptized, or he put into it, that, I purposely wave the consideration of, till we are led to speak concerning the subjects of baptism, that we may insist on the several matters in controversy, between those that maintain, and others that deny infant baptism, together, which we shall have occasion to do under the next answer: Whereas, I am ready to persuade myself, that what I shall advance under this, together with that which respects the improvement of baptism, will not be much contested by those who are in a different way of thinking, with respect to the subjects of baptism, and the mode of administering it.

2. We are now to consider, that baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament; and therefore it differs from those baptisms, or washings, that were frequently practised under the Old Testament dispensation; concerning which, the apostle says, that it _stood in meats and drinks, and divers washings_, Heb. ix. 10. or _baptisms_[60]. Thus we read of many instances in which persons were washed under the ceremonial law: This was an ordinance used in the consecration of persons to holy offices; as it is said, that _Aaron and his sons_ were to be _brought to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and washed with water_, Exod. xxix. 4. and Lev. viii. 6. when they were consecrated to be priests. Again, when they ministered in holy things, or came near unto the altar, it is said, they _washed, as the Lord commanded Moses_, Exod. xl. 32. for this reason the laver was set between the tent of the congregation and the altar, and water put therein to wash in; and they washed their hands and their feet therein, ver. 30, 31. And this ceremony was used by them, when they were subject to divers uncleannesses; thus, in the method of cleansing the leper, he was to _wash himself_, and, _after that_ might _come into the camp_, Lev. xvi. 8, 9. The same thing was to be done by those who were liable to uncleannesses of another nature, Deut. xxii. 10, 11.

These ceremonial washings, when applied to persons, seem to be ordained to signify their consecration, or dedication, to God, in some of the instances before mentioned; and in others, they signified the means which God had ordained to cleanse the soul from moral impurity; which was denoted by the ceremonial uncleannesses which they desired to be purified from. These ordinances, indeed, expired together with the rest of the ceremonial law: Nevertheless, it is very evident, from the institution of gospel-baptism, that the sign is retained; though there are some circumstances in the thing signified thereby, in which it differs from those baptisms which were formerly used by the Jewish church. They were hereby devoted to God, to observe that peculiar mode of worship which he prescribed by the hand of his servant Moses; we are devoted to God, as those who hereby signify our obligation to walk according to the rules prescribed by Christ in the gospel. They also used this ordinance, to signify the cleansing virtue of the blood of Jesus, who was to come, and the Spirit that was to be poured forth, as consequent thereupon; we use it to signify or express our faith in what Christ has accomplished, and in the grace which the Spirit works pursuant thereunto; therefore we call it an ordinance of the New Testament.

3. Baptism was instituted by Christ. This is evident from the commission he gave to his apostles, not only to preach the gospel to all nations, but to _baptize them in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost_, Matt. xxviii. 19.[61] and this he appointed to be a standing ordinance in the church, throughout all the ages thereof; on which account he promises, in the following words, that he will _be with_ his ministers, in fulfilling the commission that he gave them to execute, _unto the end of the world_: Therefore, we must conclude, that it is a standing ordinance in the church, and not designed to be observed only during the first age thereof, till Christianity universally obtained. This we assert in opposition to the Socinians, who suppose, that baptism was, indeed, instituted by Christ; but the design hereof, was only to be an external badge, or sign, of the heathens embracing the Christian religion, as they were formerly initiated into the Jewish church by that ceremonial washing that was then in use: But the contrary to this will appear from what we shall have occasion to speak to, under a following head, when we consider what baptism was a sign and seal of; which is equally applicable to the church in our day, as it was to those who lived in the first planting thereof.

II. It is farther observed, that baptism is to be performed in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. This contains in it a professed acknowledgment, in this solemn act of dedication of the divine Trinity; and accordingly it is an act of religious worship, in which God’s right to the persons baptized, is publicly owned, and an intimation given, that all saving blessings, which are desired or expected in this ordinance, are given by the Father, through a Mediator, purchased by the Son, and applied by the Holy Spirit. This includes in it much more than a being baptized by the authority of these divine persons; which is all that some of the Antitrinitarians will allow to be meant by, in their name: For though no ordinance can be rightly performed but by a divine warrant, yet this warrant is equally extended to the administering, or engaging in any other ordinance; and therefore, a being baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, signifies more than this; namely, a person’s being dedicated to them; in which dedication, a solemn profession is made, that they have a right to all religious worship, which we are obliged to perform as well as that all our hope of salvation is from them: Therefore, some think, that this idea, which is principally intended in the form of baptism, would be better expressed, if the words of institution[62] were rendered _into the name_ of the Father, &c. as it is rendered elsewhere, Gal. iii. 27. where the apostle is speaking of a person’s being _baptized into Christ_[63], and explains it as denoting a _putting on Christ_; or a professing, as it is said, ver. 29. that _we are Christ’s_. Thus they who are baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are denoted hereby, to be professedly their servants and subjects; under an indispensible obligation to put their trust in, and hope for, all saving blessings from them, according to the tenor of the gospel.

It is enquired, by some, whether it be absolutely necessary, in the administration of this ordinance, explicitly to make mention of the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? and some assert, that it is not; because we read of persons being _baptized in the name of Jesus_, in Acts xix. 5. without any mention of the name of the Father, or Holy Ghost; and in chap. viii. 16. the same thing is mentioned, as it is said, _They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus_. But to this it may be replied, that it does not appear, that this was the express form of words used in baptizing those that are here mentioned; but it only argues, that the ordinance was administered, and that Christ’s name and glory was proclaimed therein: So that, though the other divine persons are not particularly mentioned, it does not follow from thence, that they did not adhere to the express words of institution, which were given to the apostles; it might as well be argued, that John did not baptize in the name of any of the Divine persons; since when we read of his baptism, it is said, _I baptize you with water_; but it does not thence follow, that he did not baptize them in the name of God; inasmuch as he plainly confesses that _God sent him to baptize with water_, John i. 33.

But, that this matter may be set in a just light, we must distinguish between a person’s omitting to mention the Son or Holy Ghost, in the form of baptism, as denying them to be divine persons, (in which case the ordinance is invalid;) and his doing this for no other reason, but because he thinks that we are not to be tied up to a particular form of words, but may sometimes baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and, at other times, in the name of Jesus: In this case, I will not say that the ordinance is invalid; but yet, his manner of administering it, will be highly offensive to many serious Christians, and can hardly be reckoned an instance of faithfulness to Christ; who has, by an express command, intimated what words are to be used therein.

III. We are now to consider, what is signified in baptism, and what engagements are laid on the person baptized. There are some, especially among the Socinians, who maintain, that it is only an external, or visible badge of Christianity in general, signifying a person’s right to be called a Christian, or a professor of that religion, which was instituted by our Saviour; and their design herein seems to be, that they might evade the force of the argument which we bring to prove the divinity of the Son and Spirit, from their being the object of that religious worship, which according to our explication thereof, is contained in it. Did they intend, by being a Christian, the same thing as we do, namely, a subjection to Christ, as a divine person, or a professed obligation which we are laid under, to worship God the Father, through the Son, by the Spirit, we should have no contention with them about this matter: But since we are not agreed as to the meaning of being a Christian, especially, since they intend no more hereby than our being obliged to adhere to a certain scheme of religious worship prescribed by Christ, of what kind soever it be, in like manner as a person is called a Mahometan, because he embraces Mahomet’s Alcoran as a rule of faith, we cannot think this general account of baptism, as an external badge of Christianity, to be a sufficient explication of what is intended by it as a sign, or significant ordinance.

There are several things mentioned in this answer, of which, it is said, to be a sign and seal, _viz._ of our engrafting into Christ, and obtaining remission of sins by his blood, of our regeneration by his Spirit, our adoption, and resurrection unto eternal life, which include in them all the benefits of Christ’s mediation; which have been particularly explained under some foregoing answers: But there is one that contains in it all the rest; and accordingly it is generally expressed, by divines, as that which is a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, and all the duties, obligations, and privileges that are either enjoined or bestowed therein. What this covenant is, together with the blessings thereof, and how the grace of God is manifested therein, has been likewise considered under some foregoing answers[65]. Therefore all that I shall now add concerning it, is, that it contains all the promises in which our salvation is included, of which there is one that comprehends all the rest, whereby it is often expressed, namely, that God will be a God unto his people, Gen. xiv. 1. _their shield, and exceeding great reward_, chap. xvii. And elsewhere that he will _put his laws into their minds, and write them in their hearts, and will be to them a God; and they shall be to him a people_, Heb. viii. 10. There are very great privileges contained in this relation, namely, our being under the special care and protection of Christ, having a right to what he has purchased, and that inheritance which he has laid up in heaven for his children, their enjoying communion with him here, and being made happy with him hereafter.

Now the main thing to be considered, is, how baptism is a sign and seal thereof? To this it may be answered, that we are not to suppose that this, or any other ordinance, confers the grace of the covenant, as the Papists pretend[66]; for it is, at most, but a significant sign or seal thereof; whereas, the grace of the covenant is the thing signified thereby. There are, as has been before observed two ways, by which persons may be said to be in covenant with God, namely, professedly, or visibly, which is the immediate intent and design of this ordinance; and there is a being in covenant, as laying hold on the grace of the covenant, when we give up ourselves to Christ, by faith; and, as the consequence thereof, lay claim to the blessings of his redemption. Now baptism is a sign and seal of the covenant of grace in both these senses, though in different respects. The ordinance itself is a professed dedication to God, or an acknowledgment that the person baptized is obliged to be the Lord’s; and signifies his right to the external blessings of the covenant of grace, which are contained in the gospel-dispensation. There is also more than this contained in a person’s being given to God in baptism, whether it be by himself as in those who are baptized when adult; or by his parents, as in the case of infants, in that the person who dedicates, expresses his faith in Christ, the Mediator of the covenant, and hopes for the saving blessings which he has purchased for his people. It is one thing, for this ordinance to confer these blessings, and another, for it to be an instituted means, in which we express our faith and hope, that these blessings shall be bestowed, the person being devoted to God with that view.

There are other two things that are more especially signified in baptism, namely, privileges expected, and obligations acknowledged.

1. The privileges expected are such as accompany salvation, which are the special gift of the Holy Ghost, _viz._ the taking away the guilt and pollution of sin, and our being made partakers of all the blessings that Christ hath purchased, and God the Father, in him, has promised to the heirs of salvation. I do not say, that all who are baptized are made partakers of these privileges; but they are given up to God, or give up themselves to him in this ordinance, in hope of obtaining them.

2. Here is a public profession, or acknowledgment of our obligation to be the Lord’s. This is, from the nature of the thing, implied in its being a dedication to God. When we make a surrender of ourselves to him, we do hereby declare, that we are willing to be his servants and subjects, and entirely at his disposal: This is contained in a fiducial act of self-dedication to God, and cannot be done by one in the behalf of another: And, it is to be feared, that many, who give up themselves to God in this ordinance, when adult, though they make a profession of their faith, yet do not give up themselves by faith; but that is only known to the heart-searching God: Nevertheless, as we express our faith and hope, in this ordinance, concerning the privileges but now mentioned; so we, in this act of dedication, confess, that God has a right to us, and that it is our indispensible duty to be his, so that hereby we are, either by our own consent, as in self-dedication, professedly the Lord’s; or this is acknowledged by those who have a right to dedicate, and thereby to signify this obligation; which, because it is highly just and reasonable, the persons devoted are obliged to stand to, or else are brought under a great degree of guilt, in not being stedfast in God’s covenant.

There is one thing more mentioned in this answer, namely, that the person baptized, is solemnly admitted into the visible church, which I rather choose to pass over; since it is hard to understand what some mean by the visible church, and a person’s becoming a member thereof by baptism. We have elsewhere considered the difficulties that are contained in the description of the visible church; together with the qualifications for, and admission of persons into church-communion.[67] If, by being admitted into the visible church, we are to understand that a person has a right to all the ordinances of the church by baptism, without being admitted afterwards into it by mutual consent; this is contrary to the faith and practice of most of the reformed churches. And if, on the other hand, they mean hereby, that here is a public declaration of our hope, that the person baptized shall be made partaker of those privileges which Christ has purchased for, and given to his church: This is no more than what has been already explained in our considering the baptismal expectations and obligations; but, whether this can be properly called an admission into the church, I rather leave to be determined by those who better understand what they mean, when they say that this is done in baptism, than I do.[68]

Footnote 59:

Βαπτιζω, has been said to signify immergo and _exclusively_ when
applied to sacred baptism. And this is necessary to establish
immersion as the only mode. The question is not, therefore, whether
Βαπτιζω, sometimes signifies to immerse, but _whether it never
signifies any thing else_. This can be proved, it is presumed, by no
Lexicographer, and no version of the New Testament. In the New
Testament it is taken in different senses, for example we read of a
Baptism with _the Holy Ghost and with fire_. It is therefore a
_generic_ term and not _specific_, as _immerse_ cannot be substituted
for it in all places. If a specific Greek term signifying to _plunge_
had occasionally been used for it, in the New Testament, yet baptism
being in our Saviour’s commission to his disciples, should not have
been confined to one mode, but this is never the case. The numerous
admissions of our divines, that Βαπτιζω, primarily signifies to
_immerse_, and which are disingenuously collected to impose on the
ignorant; do not weaken our cause, as they did neither influence the
practice nor sentiments of those who used them.

If Βαπτιζω, signifies to _immerse totally_, or _partially_; to dip, to
cleanse, or purify, &c. it leaves the mode to our convenience or
choice; and reason also accords, that the mode is unimportant with
respect to moral defilement.—Porphery has “Βαπτιζεται μεχρι κεφαλης.”
The oracle said “Βαπτιζη _him as a bottle_” (of leather, which could
swim) “_but it is not lawful to plunge him wholly under water_.”
Strabo says, “Βαπτιζομενων _up to the waist_.” Aristotle says
“Βαπτεικαι ανθιζει τηνχειρα,” _it stains and renders florid the hand_.
Aristophanes says, “Βαπτομενος Βραχειοις,” _stained with tawny
colours_. Homer says, “¨Εβαπτετο δ᾽᾽ αιματι λιμνω,” _And the fountain
was tinged with blood_. Rev. xix. 13. “Ιματων Βεβαμενον αιματι.”
Isaiah xxi. 4. “_Fearfulness_ Βαπτιζει _me_.”

Footnote 60:

Διαφοροις βαπτισμοις.

Footnote 61:

The promulgation of this command marks a new and important era in the
history of the church and of the world. These words may be considered
as the public and formal abrogation of the Mosaic economy; and the
authoritative annunciation of the new order of things under the
gospel.

The first communications of divine truth, through Adam and Noah, were
made indiscriminately to the human family; but, in both instances, the
precious deposit was generally adulterated, and nearly lost. The
wisdom of God, therefore, saw it to be necessary to select and
separate from the idolatrous world, a particular family which might
serve as a repository of the divine oracles and institutions; until
that ‘_Seed of the woman_’ should come, of whom it was predicted, that
he should ‘_bruise the serpent’s head_:’ and that _‘seed of Abraham’
in whom all the families of the earth should be blessed_.

But when JESUS CHRIST, _our great high-priest of good things to come,
had, through the eternal Spirit, offered himself without spot to God,
to bear the sins of many_; and had _by this one offering of his own
body, perfected them that are sanctified_, the service of the first
tabernacle was set aside, and as to any utility, or divine authority,
ceased forever; as an emblem of which, the veil of the temple was rent
in twain from the top to the bottom, at the very moment of expiation;
when Christ our high-priest, by sheding his vital blood and pouring
out his soul unto death, _offered his one great sacrifice for sins_.

So great, however, was the power of early and national prejudice, that
the apostles did not, for some time, understand the extent of their
commission. They had, before, been sent on a short mission, on which
occasion it was ordered, that they should not go _into the way of the
Gentiles_, nor even _enter into any city of the Samaritans_; and they
seem to have thought, that by going _into all the world_, and
_preaching to every creature_, no more was intended, than that they
should go to the seed of Abraham now widely dispersed among the
nations. But this veil was soon removed, by a particular revelation
made to Peter in a vision; and by the calling of Paul to the
apostleship, who, from the beginning, received commission to go to the
Gentiles, and was, in a peculiar manner, designated and directed, _to
preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ_.

DR. ALEXANDER’S MISSIONARY SERMON.

Footnote 62:

Εις τὸ ὁνομα.

Footnote 63:

Εις Χριστόν.

Footnote 65:

_See vol. II. Quest. XXXI, XXXII. Page 167, & 185._

Footnote 66:

_There is a common aphorism among them, that the sacraments, and
baptism in particular, confer grace, ex opere operato._

Footnote 67:

_See vol. II. page 166-216._

Footnote 68:

The Gospel is glad tidings of great joy, not a system of new and
terrifying restrictions and exclusions; so far from retracting
formerly conceded privileges, and confining the church within narrower
limits, it publishes peace and salvation, and invites the whole human
family to participate in these blessings. It must either be referred
to the impressions it has made, or to uninterrupted usage that females
have, by a general consent, been deemed to possess an unquestionable
right to approach the holy communion, though neither precept for it is
found, nor an example of it recorded in the Scriptures. This baptism
of infants was still less necessary to be enjoined by, and less likely
to have been noticed in the short history given us of apostolical
transactions.

He who gave parental affection, and is the Lord of his church under
every dispensation, conferred on children at an early age of the world
the privilege of sharing with their parents in the seals of grace, and
bearing the tokens of his covenant. Jewish christians having
themselves experienced such benignity, and been given to the same God,
whom they now served under brighter displays of his eternal and
unchangeable love, could not have expected, that, an entrance into the
milder gospel-church would have been denied to the seed whom God had
given them, and whom they had devoted to him not only in prayer, but
in that ordinance which he had appointed for the purpose. An ordinance
which being now obsolete was supplied by another, apparently as proper
for their children as themselves. Because infants are incapable of
repenting and believing, these duties were not required nor expected
of them, either under the old, or new dispensation; but though
incapable of actual sin, and therefore free from obligations of
obedience unto the law, yet their nature is not pure, and consequently
needs the sanctifying influence of divine grace, which can correct the
latent enmity, and renew the soul. They are capable, therefore, of
spiritual blessings, and may consequently be members of the invisible
church, and received into the church triumphant. The obvious
reasonableness of the privilege of being received with their parents
into the society of the worshippers of God, a privilege publicly known
to have been conferred by the great Head of the church, equally
prevented the supposition of an implied repeal, and the necessity of a
renewal of the right.

If indeed there had been a different religion introduced; if
christians were not engrafted into the old stock; if they worshipped
some other than the God of Israel; if there was another moral law,
another Christ than he whose day the fathers anticipated, and another
faith; this privilege of receiving infants into the church might have
been interrupted; and in that case unless expressly again enjoined, it
ought not to have been regarded in practice. But if the christian
religion is founded upon the prophets; if the peculiarities of the
Jewish worship were but shadows of gospel things; if both were
directed to the same glory of God and salvation of men; if they both
enjoined the same holiness and presented the same object of faith; if
those who were saved under the Old Testament shall be associated with
those who are saved under the New; the privileges formerly granted to
children will remain the same; and it is not wonderful that the first
christian should obey the dictates of parental tenderness; and that
desiring the salvation of their children as well as their own, should
cause their households to be baptized as well as themselves. To have
affirmed in the gospel history expressly, that children were a part of
the household, could have answered no purpose in the first days of
christianity, but would have been thought repetitions and unmeaning
until modern times. In the fifth, in the third and even so early as in
the second century, the baptism of infants was the established usage
of the church, and it was then thought, and not disputed, to have been
the practice of the apostles themselves.

Quest. CLXVI.

QUEST. CLXVI. _Unto whom is baptism to be administered?_

_Answ._ Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the
visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till
they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him; but
infants descending from parents, either both, or but one of them,
professing faith in Christ, and obedience to him, are in that
respect within the covenant, and to be baptised.

In this answer, which principally respects the subjects of baptism, we have,