Chapter XII: Front Matter (12)

_Answ._ To this it may be replied, that the whole strength of this objection depends upon the sense that is given of the Greek particles, which we often render _into_, and _out of_[90]. But this will have no weight with any but those who are unacquainted with the Greek language, since it is so well known to all that understand it, that the former of these particles often signifies _to_, as well as _into_; and the latter _from_, as well as _out of_; as innumerable instances might easily be given, was it needful, from scripture, and other Greek authors, in which the words are applied to those things, that according to the natural signification thereof, cannot be understood as denoting _into_, or _out of_. There is one scripture which no one can suppose is to be taken in any other sense but what is agreeable to our present purpose, _viz._ Mat. xvii. 27. wherein our Saviour bids Peter _Go to the sea[91], and cast an hook, and take the fish that first cometh thence_, &c. where, by _go to the sea_, we can understand nothing else, but go to the sea-shore; and yet the word is the same with that which is, in some other places, rendered _into_. There are other scriptures in which persons are said to _go to the mountain_, or some other places, wherein it would be very improper to say, that they went into the place; though the word be the same with that which in other instances we render _into_. And the word[92] which is sometimes rendered _out of_, is frequently rendered _from_, and can be understood in no other sense: As when it is said, in Luke xi. 31. _The queen of the south came from the utmost parts of the earth, to hear the wisdom of Solomon_; which cannot be understood of her coming _out of_, but _from_ thence. But, this matter being so well known to all that read the New Testament in the original, it is needless for me to give any other instances.[93]

As to what concerns the Eunuch’s _going into the water_, I cannot think any thing else is intended by it, but that he descended or lighted down from his chariot, to the water, that is, by a metonymy, to the water-side, in order to his being baptized by Philip. It is no uncommon mode of speaking, to say, that a person goes down to the river-side, to take water, or to the well, to draw it; therefore, this is no strain on the sense of the word; and I am the rather inclined to give into this opinion, because some modern travellers, taking notice of the place where this was done, intimate, that it was only a spring of water; and therefore without sufficient depth to plunge the body in: And some ancient writers, who lived between three and four hundred years after our Saviour’s time, as Jerom and Eusebius, intimate the same thing. If it be said, that these may be mistaken as to the place, inasmuch as the particular spot of ground in which this water was, is not mentioned in scripture: I will not lay much stress upon it; however, I cannot but observe, that it is represented by a diminutive expression, as it is said, they _came to a certain water_, that is, probably, a brook, which was by the way-side; not a river, or a great collection of water. And it is further observed, that Philip, as well as the Eunuch, _went down into the water_; though none suppose that he was plunged in the water; therefore it does not certainly appear, from the sense of the word, that the Eunuch was, unless the matter in controversy be taken for granted, that baptism can be performed in no other way, but by plunging.

Moreover, _to go down to the water_, does not always signify in other scriptures, going down to the bottom of the water; as when the Psalmist, in Psal. cvii. 23. speaks of them that _go down to the sea in ships_, he does not mean them that go down to the bottom of it; therefore, going down to the water does not always signify being plunged in it. As for what is said concerning Philip and the eunuch’s _coming up out of the water_, it may very fairly be understood of their returning from the water-side, and the eunuch’s going up again into his chariot. Moreover, I cannot but think, that in this, and all other places, where persons are said to _come up out of the water_, it denotes an action performed with design, and the perfect exercise of the understanding in him that does it; which seems not agreeable to one who is at the bottom of the water, and cannot well come up from thence, unless by the help of him that baptized him. The sense of the words, _coming out of the water_, is agreeable to what is said concerning our Saviour at his baptism, in Matt. iii. 16. _Jesus went up straightway out of the water_; which seems to be a mistake in our translation; where the words απὸ τοῦ ὑδαλος, have been rendered, _from the water_; which is of the same import with the sense of the Greek particle ἐκ when a person is said to _come up out of the water_.

_Obj._ 3. It seems very evident, that John the Baptist used no other mode but that of immersion; because he chose those places to exercise this part of his ministry in, that were well supplied with water, sufficient for this purpose. Accordingly, we first read of his removing from the _wilderness of Judea_, in which he _preached the doctrine of repentance_; and told the people, that _the kingdom of heaven_, that is, the gospel-state, which was to begin with the appearing of the Messiah, _was at hand_; and then we read of his removing to the banks of the river Jordan, for the conveniency of baptizing those who came to him for that purpose: And, after that, we read of another station in which he resided, _viz._ _Enon, near to Salim_; and this reason is assigned; _because there was much water there_, John iii. 23. Now, if he had baptized by sprinkling, or pouring a little water on the face, he had no need to remove out of the _wilderness of Judea_: For, whatever scarcity of water there might be there, it was no difficult matter for him to be supplied with enough to serve his occasion, had this been his mode of baptizing.

_Answ._ To this it may be replied, that though John removed to Jordan and Ænon, that he might be well supplied with water, as he daily wanted large quantities thereof; yet it doth not necessarily follow from hence, that this was done for the sake of immersion therein: And it doth not sufficiently appear to me, that Ænon afforded water deep enough for a person to be baptized in it after this manner; for it seems to be but a small tract of land, in which it is hardly probable, that there were many lakes, or rivers of water contained; which is as much as can be said concerning a well watered country. Therefore, I think, the words[94] ought to have been rendered _many waters_; by which we are to understand, as Dr. Lightfoot observes, that it was a place of springs[95], or small brooks of water. This place John chose, that he might be supplied with water for his use; but it doth not, I think, necessarily, follow from hence, that he baptized by immersion; Besides, if there had been a great collection of waters there, there would have been some indications thereof at this day; which, I believe, it would be hard to prove that there are.

As to the other part of the objection, that it was a very easy matter for him to have been supplied with water in the wilderness of Judea, to baptize by sprinkling or pouring, by his having it brought to him in vessels for that purpose: It may be replied, that if he had only poured water on the head or face, there is no need to suppose that he was so sparing of it, as not to use above a spoonful, especially when it was so easy a matter for him, by his removing to another station, to be better supplied. If there was but a little water poured on every one that came to be baptized by him, it would require a very great quantity of water to baptize the vast multitudes that came to him; inasmuch as it is said, that _Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, were baptized of him_: It is one thing for a little water to be brought in a bason to baptize a person or two, and another thing for this to be done in the case under our present consideration. Moreover, it is certain, that in hot countries, and particularly in Judea; and more especially in the wilderness thereof, there was a very great scarcity of water; accordingly we read, sometimes, that water was so valuable a thing, that it was reckoned a very considerable part of a man’s estate: Thus Isaac was envied by the Philistines, for all the wells his father’s servants had digged; and then we read of their stopping them up, and his digging other wells; and also of the strife between the herdsmen of Gerar, and his herdsmen, for the possession thereof, Gen. xxvi. 14,-20. And we read, in Gen. xxi. 14,-16. that when Abraham sent Hagar away from him with Ishmael, he gave her _bread_, and a _bottle of water_; and _when the water was spent in the bottle, she cast the child under one of the shrubs_, despairing of his life; which she need not have done, if water was so easy to come by as it is supposed in this objection. It is certain, that a person may travel many miles without finding water to quench his thirst, in those desert places. This farther appears from Samson’s being _ready to die for thirst_, after the great victory he had obtained over the Philistines, on which occasion God wrought a miracle to supply him, Judges xv. 18, 19, which can hardly be accounted for, if there had been so great plenty of water in that country, as there is in ours; this then, I apprehend to be the reason of John’s removal to Jordan and Ænon; therefore it doth not necessarily prove that his design was to baptize in that way that is pleaded for by those on the other side of the question.

Moreover, as it doth not sufficiently appear to me, from any thing contained in the objection, that John used immersion in baptism, so it seems most agreeable, to some circumstances that attended it, to conclude that he did not; inasmuch as there was no conveniency for the change of their garments, nor servants appointed to help them therein; which seems necessary to answer this occasion. And some have supposed, that it might endanger the health of those who were infirm among them, and John’s much more, who was obliged to stand many days together in the water, or, at least, the greatest part thereof, while he was administering this ordinance. And they who were baptized must immediately retire when the ordinance was over, or it would endanger their health; unless we have recourse to a dispensation of providence, that is next to miraculous: Though I am sensible, some say, that none ever suffered hereby in our day; which, if the observation be true, is a kind providence that they ought to be thankful for.

But if, after all that has been said on this matter, it will not be allowed that baptism signifies any thing else but dipping in water: Then I might farther allege, that this might be done by dipping the face, which is the principal part of the body, without plunging the whole body; and this might answer the design of the ordinance as well as the other; since it is not the quantity used in a sacramental sign that is so much to be regarded, as the action performed, together with the matter of it; if the smallest piece of bread, and a spoonful of wine are used in the Lord’s supper, this is generally reckoned as well adapted to answer the design of the ordinance, as if a great quantity of each were received by every one that partakes of it. Now, as to what concerns our present argument, the washing a part of the body is deemed sufficient to signify the thing intended, as much as though the whole body had been washed. Thus when our Saviour washed his disciples’ feet, and told Peter, _If_ he _washed him not, he had no part in him_, John xiii. 5. wherein (by the way) we may observe, that he calls washing his feet, washing him, by a synecdoche, for a part of the whole; upon which occasion Peter replies, _not my feet only, but also my hands and my head_; and Jesus answered, _He that is washed needeth not, save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit_, ver. 10. by which, I think, he intends, that this signifies that cleansing, which is the spiritual meaning thereof, as much as though the whole body had been washed with water; for though one design hereof might be to teach them humility, and brotherly kindness; yet it also signifies their being washed or cleansed by his blood and Spirit.

_Obj._ 4. There is another objection on which very much stress is generally laid, which I should not do justice to the cause I am maintaining, if I should wholly pass it over, taken from what the apostle says, in Rom. vi. 3, 4, 5. _so many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus, were baptized into his death: Therefore we were buried with him by baptism[96] into death; that, like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection._ From whence it is argued, that there ought to be a similitude between the sign and the thing signified; and, consequently, that baptism should be performed in such a way, that, by being covered with water, there might be a resemblance of Christ’s burial; and by being lifted up out of the water, a resemblance of his resurrection: Therefore this ordinance doth not only signify the using the means of cleansing with water, but the mode, namely, being plunged, or, as it were, buried in water.

_Answ._ To this it may be replied, that it is not agreeable to the nature of a sacramental sign, in any other instance; that there should be an analogy between the thing done, and what is signified thereby, any otherwise than by divine appointment. Accordingly we observed, in the foregoing answer, that a sacrament has not a natural tendency to signify Christ, and his benefits; as the eating bread and drinking wine doth not signify the body and blood of Christ, any otherwise than as this signification is annexed by our Saviour, to the action performed; the same, I think, may be applied to baptism; especially our consecration, and dedication to God therein; and if any other external sign had been instituted, to signify the blessings of the covenant of grace, we should have been as much obliged to make use of it as we were of water. Therefore, I conceive, the apostle, in this scripture, mentioned in the objection, doth not refer to our being buried in water, or taken out of it, as a natural sign of Christ’s burial and resurrection; but our having communion with him in his burial and resurrection. This, I think, would hardly be denied by many, on the other side of the question, did not the objection, but now mentioned, and the cause they maintain, render it expedient for them to understand the words in another sense. This is all that I shall say with respect to this matter in controversy, as to the subjects and mode of baptism; in which, as I should have been unfaithful, had I said less to it; so I have not the least inclination to treat those that differ from me in an unfriendly way, as having a just sense of their harmony with us, especially a great part of them, in those doctrines that have a more immediate reference to our salvation.

We shall now proceed to consider, that as there are some who appear to be grossly ignorant of the thing signified in baptism, who seem to engage in it, as though it were not a divine institution, concluding it to be little more than an external rite or form to be used in giving the child a name, being induced hereto rather by custom, than a sense of the obligation they are under, to give up their children to God by faith therein; so there are others who attribute too much to it, when they assert, that infants are hereby regenerated; and that if they die before they commit actual sin, they are undoubtedly saved, inasmuch as they are hereby made members of Christ, children of God, and heirs of the kingdom of heaven: This seems to be an ascribing that to the ordinance, which is rather expected or desired, than conferred thereby.

As for the child’s being signed with the sign of the cross, signifying hereby that he should not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified, but manfully to fight under his banner against sin, the world, and the devil; how much soever this may be a branch of that baptismal obligation, which he is professedly under; yet I cannot see what warrant persons have to make use of this external sign and symbol, which can be reckoned no other than an ordinance for their faith, though destitute of a divine institution.

There is also another thing practised by some in baptism, that is greatly abused, namely, the requiring that some should be appointed as sureties for the child, by whom it is personated; and they engage, in a solemn manner, in its behalf, that it shall fulfil the obligation that it is laid under, which is not only more than what is in their power to perform; but it is to be feared, that the greatest part of these sureties hardly think themselves obliged to shew any concern about them afterward. And that which is farther exceptionable in this matter, is that the parents, who are more immediately obliged to give up their children to God, seem to be, as it were, excluded from having any hand in this matter.

I have nothing to except against the first rise of this practice; which was in the second century, when the church was under persecution; and the design thereof was laudable and good, namely, that if the parents should die before the child came of age; whereby it would be in danger of being seized on by the Heathen, and trained up in their superstitious and idolatrous mode of worship, the sureties promised, that, in this case, they would deal with it as though it were their own child, and, bring it up in the Christian religion; which kind and pious concern for its welfare, might have been better expressed at some other time than in baptism, lest this should be thought an appendix to that ordinance: However, through the goodness of God, the children of believing parents are not reduced to those hazardous circumstances; and therefore the obligation to do this, is less needful; but to vow, and not perform, is not only useless to the child, but renders that only a matter of form, which they promise to do in this sacred ordinance.

The only thing that I shall add under this answer, is, that if we have been baptized, either in our infancy, or when adult, we are obliged, in faithfulness, as we value our own souls, to improve it to the glory of God, and our spiritual welfare in the whole conduct of our lives. And this leads us to what is contained in the following answer.

Footnote 69:

Μαθητεισατε.

Footnote 70:

_Vid Whitby in Loc._

Footnote 71:

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

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

Footnote 72:

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

Footnote 73:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That the covenant or divine charter, first given to Noah, _included_
the preceding; it was the _same covenant_ with _additional grants_:
for the Lord says, “I will _establish_ my covenant.” Lest Noah should
infer that the drowning of the world in wrath disannulled the well
known covenant, God dissipates his fears, by saying, “I will
_establish_ my covenant.”

On Noah’s _account_, or _as belonging_ to him, _all his house_ or
family was privileged. The privilege is,—“Come thou, and _all thy
house_ into the ark.” The ground and reason of that privilege—“_for
thee have I seen righteous_.” It is true, the natural dictates of
reason and affection, whereby a _father pitieth his children_, and
whereby an infidel _careth for his own, especially those of his own
house_, would have prompted this righteous person to bring _all his
family_, (except any adults _refused_ compliance) into the ark, (_the
like figure whereunto is baptism_, as an inspired teacher assures us,
1 Pet. iii. 21.) yet the Lord was pleased to brighten his evidence and
strengthen his obligations of duty by express revelation.

After the flood the institution of _sacrifices_ continued as the seal
of the _first_ part of the covenant; and the _rainbow_ was instituted
as the seal of the _additional_ part, or, as Pareus calls it,
“_appendix_ of the covenant of grace.” And here it is worthy of
notice, that as the first exhibition of the covenant and its seals
respected the offspring of _fœderati_, and the _renewal_ or
_establishment_ of it to Noah retained that privilege in full force:
so also the _appendix_ of the covenant comprehended his _seed_.

Respecting this appendix of the covenant of which the rainbow was the
seal, though we suppose, with Witsius, it was not formally and
precisely the covenant of grace; yet we observe, with the same
excellent author, “it does not seem consistent with the divine
perfections, to make such a covenant with every living creature, but
on _supposition_ of a covenant of grace, and having a _respect_ to
it.” And as this covenant, in its universality, implied the covenant
of grace, we are not to deny, but the promises of it were also
_sealed_ to Noah and his seed by the rainbow. See Rev. iv. 3. x. 8.

It is observable, finally, that Noah his _sons_, and _their seed_ were
_fœderati_, in this ratification of the covenant; consequently
whatever _seals_ of the covenant belonged to Noah, belonged to _his
sons_, and _their seed_, while non-dissentients.

Appeal we next to a very important period of sacred history, viz. From
Abraham to Moses. On this also we make the following remarks.

The Abrahamic covenant _included_ the preceding dispensations, on the
general principle—that grants and privileges continue in force until
_repealed_. Which repealing, if it be not either _express_, or arise
from the nature of the case, in itself _plain_, can have no binding
influence, that is to say, no existence at all: except we maintain,
that we are _bound_ to resign an important good without an assignable
cause; which is in fact to maintain that we ought to _deny_ that to
be, which is.

I suppose it will be granted, that the _principal blessing_ exhibited
in the foregoing dispensations was _the righteousness of faith_; the
great importance of which to the human race, in every age of the
world, no one will deny who considers things _as they are_. This
covenant, therefore, was in force to Abraham _prior_ to what is called
the Abrahamic dispensation; and in this connexion we might mention Lot
and his family. But, behold,

A most explicit ratification of it, with _superadded_ favours, Gen.
xii. 3.—_In thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. And I
will_ establish my covenant _between me and thee, and thy_ seed _after
thee in their generations, for an everlasting covenant_; To be a God
unto thee and to thy seed after thee. _ver._ 10. _This is my covenant
which ye shall keep between me and you_, and thy seed _after thee_:
every man-_child among you shall be_ circumcised, _ver._ 12. _He that
is_ eight days old _shall be circumcised among you, every_ man-_child
in your generations; he that is born in the house_, or bought with
money of any stranger, _which is not of thy seed_. _ver._ 24-27. _And
Abraham was_ ninety years old and nine, _when he was circumcised in
the flesh of his foreskin. And Ishmael his son was_ thirteen years
old, _when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. In the_
self-same day _was Abraham circumcised, and Ishmael his son. And_ all
the men of his house, _born in the house, and_ bought with money of
the stranger, _were circumcised with him_. Hence we learn,

The _nature_ and _extent_ of the _Abrahamic covenant or promise_.
Whatever _blessings_ are _promised_ to ruined man, must be _in virtue_
of the covenant of grace. All promised blessings, therefore, must
_imply_ an _exhibition_ of _gospel grace_. And the glad tidings of
salvation through Christ preached to the _gentile world_, is expressly
called—_The blessing of Abraham_ (Gal. iii. 14.) Not that this _link_
is the _first_ in the chain of exhibited mercy to the fallen race _in
general_, or with an universal and unlimited aspect, if the reasoning
in the last sections be just: but for its _explicitness_, and
_precious_ (because expressly diffusive) intendment, it may be justly
termed a _golden link_. In this respect Abraham may well be
styled—_The Father of us all_; not to the disavowal of Noah, with whom
the covenant was before ratified, or Eve, who received the _first_
intimation of it, and who in _this_ respect eminently may be
called—_The mother of all living_. The _covenant_ of grace, in its
external manifestation, containing _an exhibition of exceeding great
and precious promises_ to every human being on the face of the globe,
to whom providence directs the joyful news, may be compared to a
flowing stream: it proceeds ultimately from the immense ocean of
sovereign grace in Christ; its _first_ visible source we trace to
paradise, where it rises in a small spring, and glides on to Noah.
During this part of its progress, there were but few comparatively who
participated of its cleansing and healing virtues, though none were
debarred from it. This continuing to glide along, without
interruption, (notwithstanding God’s awful visitation of a corrupt
world by the deluge) we discern through the person of Noah _another_
source, whence is poured forth a second stream which empties itself
into the former channel. The streams thus _united_ become a river,
which flows on to Abraham—a river to which _all_ are invited, but
_few_ come, and these made willing by the omnipotent energy of _divine
influence_ which observes the laws of another—a _hidden_ dispensation,
running parallel as it were with the former; which was also the case
in the preceding period. Then, through the highly honoured person of
Abraham we behold another mighty spring copiously pouring forth the
waters of salvation, and again uniting itself to the former river; and
from him to Christ, with a wide majestic flow, it proceeds along the
consecrated channel of the Jewish nation; gradually increasing by the
accession of other streams, till it arrives at the Saviour’s finished
work; where, impatient of confinement, it breaks over its banks on
every side, and the healing waters flow to the most distant
regions—_That the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles_.
(Gal. iii. 14, 8. compared with Gen. xii. 3. xviii. 18. xxii. 18.)
Paul expressly says, that “the _Gospel_” (even the very same as the
New Testament contains—_salvation by Grace_) “was preached to
Abraham:” And (Heb. iv. 2.) it was preached to his unbelieving
descendants in the wilderness.

As it is _natural_ to expect, that whatever exhibition of privileges
the parents enjoyed should be extended to their children, in common
with themselves; so we find that _in fact_ they are _expressly
included_ in _this_ dispensation as well as the preceding. The
covenant is established between God and Abraham’s _seed, in the very
same sense_ as with Abraham _himself_; the essence of which is—_to be
a God to him and his seed_. And lest it should be objected that the
term _seed_ refers to his _adult posterity_ who should tread in his
steps, to the exclusion of infants, all doubt is dissipated by the
appointment of applying the _seal_ of the covenant in early infancy.

_Sacrifices_ continuing in full force to _seal_ the covenant, till the
divine oblation should be made; and the _bow_ of the covenant
continuing as a token and _seal_ of it, until the Messiah’s _second_
coming; at the commencement of this period is given an _additional_
seal—_circumcision_. The very _nature_ of the rite shews that all
_females_ are excluded from being the subjects of it; as well as the
discriminating specification—_every man-child_. Here observe in
general, that children, in this rite, have the same privileges as
their parents. The males are treated as Abraham, and the females as
Sarah: _These_ therefore, had the covenant sealed in the same manner
as their honoured mother. Again: though Sarah and her sex were not the
_subjects_ of this rite, they were constant _witnesses_ to the
institution; and therefore there was an important sense in which
circumcision was a seal to Sarah and her daughters; a sense analagous
to that in which sacrifices were.

Every domestic head being, in truth, a prophet, priest, and king, in
his own family; a question must arise, Whether the covenant and its
seals are restricted to the parent head of the family, and his
children, or else extended to the _other domestics_? Nor would the
question be unimportant; for his _instructions_, his _prayers_, and
_commands_, answerable to his three-fold office, must be directed
accordingly. To this question right reason replies: If the covenant
and its seals are _beneficial_ to all capable subjects, benevolence
requires that they should be extended to the other _non-dissenting_
members—except forbidden by indisputable authority. This is the voice
of reason; and we find that this is the voice of God. The privilege is
common to the seed, and _to him that is born in the house, or bought
with money of any stranger_, which is not of the seed, Gen. xvii. 12.

It has been objected, “that the covenant with Abraham was a covenant
of _peculiarity_ only, and that circumcision was no more than a token
of _that_ covenant;” but if so, as Mr. Henry observes, “how came it
that all _proselytes_, of what nation soever, even _the strangers_,
were to be circumcised; though not being of any of the tribes, they
had no part or lot in the land of Canaan? The extending the seal of
circumcision to _proselyted strangers_, and to _their seed_, was a
plain indication, that the New Testament administration of the
covenant of grace would reach, not to the covenanters only, but their
_seed_.” But it has been proved that circumcision _sealed_ to Abraham
and his seed _the righteousness of faith_; and therefore it does not
affect the point in debate to contend that temporal promises were
sealed _also_.

We next appeal to the long and interesting period from Moses to
Christ, On which let the following observations be considered.

Whatever appertained to the Abrahamic covenant was not disannulled by
the Mosaic dispensation. This St. Paul asserts in plain terms, Gal.
iii. 17.

It may not be amiss to take notice, before we proceed, of Job’s
family; who, being as is generally supposed, cotemporary with Moses,
and unconnected with his history, deserves a previous regard. Of him
it is said, that “he _sanctified_ his children, and rose up early in
the morning, and _offered burnt-offerings_, according to the _number
of them all_—Thus did Job _continually_,” or, all the days. (Job i.
5.) On this I would only observe, let the _sanctifying_ be what it
may, the _sacrifices_ must have been of divine institution; and used
by Job, being an eminently righteous man, as the _seals_ of the
covenant of grace; with respect to his children _separately_.

Superadded to the foregoing seals of the covenant, is the _passover_;
a divine rite of the nature of a sacrifice, instituted in memory of
Israel’s deliverance out of Egypt, representing and sealing spiritual
blessings. “As to the _guests_, says Witsius, they were, first, all
native _Israelites_, who were not excluded by legal uncleanness. For
_all the congregation of Israel_ is commanded to solemnize the
passover. And, next, the _Proselytes_ circumcised and become Jews;
whether bondmen born in the house or bought with money, &c. Exod. xii.
48. _When a_ stranger _will sojourn with thee, and keep the passover
to the Lord, let_ all his males _be circumcised, and then let him come
near and keep it, and he shall be as one that is born in the land_.”
On this passage in Exodus, Dr. Jennings observes these two things;
“_First_, That when a man thus became a Proselyte, _all his males_
were to be circumcised _as well as himself_, whereby his _children_
were admitted into the visible church of God, _in his right_, as their
father. _Secondly_, That upon this, he should be _entitled to all the
privileges_ and immunities of the Jewish church and nation as well as
be subject to the whole law: He should be as one born in the land.” In
short; not only men and women, but also young children partook of this
ordinance, _as soon as they were capable_ of answering the revealed
design of it, for—no _positive_ rule was given them on this head, like
that of circumcision. It is manifest that since the injunction
respected not only individuals of such a description, but also
families _as such_, every member without exception had a _legal right_
to the ordinance; and nothing prevented _infants_ from a
participation, but what lay in the _natural_ incapacity to answer the
design of it.

“Besides the _ordinary_ and _universal_ sacraments of _circumcision_
and the _passover_, some _extraordinary_ symbols of divine grace were
granted to the Israelites in the wilderness, which in the New
Testament are applied to Christ and his benefits, and said to have the
same signification with our sacraments. And they are in order
these—The _passage_ in the cloud _through the Red Sea_—the _manna_
which was rained from heaven—The _water_ issuing out of the _rock_—and
the _brazen serpent_ erected by Moses for the cure of the Israelites.”
To this we may add, among other things, with the author now referred
to—the clear and familiar display of the _divine majesty_—and the
adumbration of divine mysteries daily _sealed_ by religious
_ceremonies_. Our subject does not call for an investigation of these
particulars, but I would remark in general, that the principle for
which we contend, is so far from being weakened, that it is abundantly
corroborated by the inspired testimony of every dispensation, and the
Mosaic in particular—That it is a common dictate of right reason,
children should from their earliest infancy share in their parents’
privileges, as far as they are capable, when no positive authority
contravenes it.

From the preceding induction of sacred evidence in favour of children
being sharers of the seals of grace in common with their parents, we
conclude, that for the space of four thousand years, that is to say,
_from the creation to Christ_, it was a rule _universally_ incumbent
on parents to treat their children as entitled to religious privileges
_equally_ with themselves, according to their capacity.—And as a
counterpart of what was observed of privileges, we may remark that, in
virtue of the same uniform principle, often when the parents were
punished with excommunication or death, their infant children were
included with them. As might be instanced in—the deluge—the
destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah—the case of Achan the Son of Zerah
(Josh. vii. 24.)—the matter of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram—the case of
the conquered nations (Deut. xx. 16, 17.)—and many more instances,
down to the destruction of Jerusalem. Far be it from us to suppose,
that the parents’ crimes and impenitence made their suffering children
incapable of _mercy_—that mercy which proceeds on an invisible plan,
and belongs to a purely spiritual dispensation. Yet, that children,
during their _dependence_ on their parents, should share equally with
them in judgment and mercies externally, is the effect of an all-wise
constitution coeval with mankind.

DR. WILLIAMS ON BAPTISM.

Footnote 74:

Tertullian observes on this passage, that if either parent were
christians,, the children were enrolled in Jesus Christ by early
baptism. And it fairly implies infant baptism in the days of Paul.
For, having declared that the unbelieving partner was not to be
divorced according to the law of Moses, which held the heathen to be
unclean; he pronounces the unbelievers set apart by such marriage to
God, as far as regarded that marriage; and in proof of this he refers
to a fact as known to the Corinthians, namely that the children of
such marriages were received into the church, and treated as holy,
that is devoted to God. Now if the children of such marriages were not
treated as heathens, but owned by the church, and this could be in no
other way than by receiving them by baptism, there can be no doubt,
that this was the case when both parents were believers.—Ακαθαρτος &
αλιος never mean _illegitimate_ and _legitimate_; and if they did,
this would be no proof that the unbelieving party was consecrated to
God, so as that the children should be clean and devoted to him.

Footnote 75:

All these scriptures which require faith, that is, the credible
profession of it, to precede baptism, are certainly directed only to
those who are at years capable of it, and not to infants. These
scriptures do not exclude infants whose claim is through the
church-membership of their parents, by which they are not “_unclean_,”
1 Cor. vii. 14. but _holy_, entitled to the promises made to the seed
of Abraham; and also by virtue of the commission to disciple _all
nations_, of which they are a part as much as their believing parents;
and by the practical exposition of that commission in the universal
baptism of infants in the christian churches for the first four
hundred years.

Footnote 76:

It may be objected, “If the preceding account be true, that baptism is
not an institution _merely positive_, as much so as any enacted under
the Mosaic dispensation; then the present economy hath no institutions
at all of that kind.” This objection supposes,

1. That precepts of a positive nature under the Mosaic dispensation,
were absolutely so in all their circumstances; so as not to leave any
thing to be inferred by the person or persons concerned, in the
discharge of the duty enjoined.—But if these things were so, if the
Jewish ritual was so express as to leave nothing to be determined by
inference, one might well wonder whence could spring so many _Targums_
and _Talmuds_, so many voluminous works intended to explain and
illustrate the various circumstances attending the performance of
these _positive duties_ among others. Are not these _unprescribed
circumstances_ of ritual worship, and other positive injunctions, what
in a great degree swell the interpretations of the _Rabbins_?—The
truth is, that there were many precepts under the Jewish economy
positive in a _considerable degree_, relative to the _subject_ as well
as the mode of an institute, and respecting the former, it was
sometimes particularly scrupulous, for reasons already assigned; but
it does not follow that ANY ONE of these were so strictly positive, as
not to take some things for _granted_ respecting the circumstances of
the duty, such as national custom, the common dictates of sense and
reason, traditionary knowledge, the general principles of the law of
nature, &c. And it should not be forgotten, that the administrator of
the Jewish rites had the subjects distinguished and characterized in a
_sensible manner_, which qualification was to be determined by the
same sort of evidence as any _facts_ in common life; but the
administrator of the Christian rites has no such grounds to proceed
on; his commission is of a _discretionary_ nature, arising from the
nature and design of the institutions themselves, as before shewn.

2. The objection again supposes, that there is some _excellency_ in an
institution being merely and absolutely positive, more than in one of
a mixed nature. But this supposition is vain and erroneous. For what
conceivable superior excellency can there be in any precept or duty on
account of its _positiveness_? Were there any force in the objection,
it would imply that the Christian dispensation is _less excellent_
than the Mosaic; as having fewer positive rites, and their proportion
of positiveness being also smaller. And it would also imply, that the
reasonable duties of prayer and praise, as founded on the law of
nature, as well as more fully enjoined by revelation, were _less
excellent_ than baptism and the Lord’s supper; and it would follow,
that the services of the church triumphant are in their own nature
_less excellent_ than those of the church militant; which are
consequences from the force of the objection equally genuine and
absurd. Our Lord’s answer respecting the first and great commandment,
shews at once that what is the most _important_ duty, is also the most
_natural_, and therefore the most remote from what is merely positive;
and that is the _love of God_. This matter has been fully shewn
before. In one word, the spirit of the objection is truly pharisaic.

Some may perhaps object, “that this has been always admitted as true,
that baptism and the Lord’s supper are positive institutions of the
New Testament; and that many pædobaptists have availed themselves of
this fort, in ascertaining the nature and enforcing the obligation of
the latter, and particularly bishop Hoadly. And as his lordship’s
principle, in his _Plain Account of the Sacrament of the Lord’s
Supper_, has been deemed unanswerable, Mr. Foot, Dr. Stennett, and
others, have taken but the same method in treating about baptism.” To
this I reply,