56.  See vol. II. page 86.

57.  See vol. III. page 424-426. and vol. II. page 205.

58.  See Vol. III. p. 12.

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.”

60.  Διαφοροις βαπτισμοις.

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.

62.  Εις τὸ ὁνομα.

63.  Εις Χριστόν.

65.  See vol. II. Quest. XXXI, XXXII. Page 167, & 185.

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

67.  See vol. II. page 166-216.

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.

69.  Μαθητεισατε.

70.  Vid Whitby in Loc.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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,

That, as principles taken upon trust, dignified titles, and lawn sleeves, are light as a feather in the scale of argument; so, on the other hand, I am satisfied the bishop of Winchester’s positions, taken in a sound sense, nay, the only consistent sense in which they can be taken, are evidently true and important. The sum is this; that all positive duties, or duties made such by institution alone, depend entirely upon the will and declaration of the person who institutes or ordains them, with respect to the real design and end of them, and consequently, to the due manner of performing them. This is strictly true, in the degree that any duties are positive, but no further. And to denominate a precept or duty positive, though but partially so, I have no objection, for the sake of distinguishing them from such as are merely moral, and evidently founded on the reason and nature of things. “Except we observe this caution,” as bishop Butler observes, “we shall be in danger of running into endless confusion.”

It may be said, “If we resign this maxim, that a positive precept or duty excludes all moral reasoning, analogy and inference, we open a door to numberless innovations, and deprive ourselves of a necessary barrier against the encroachments of popery, &c.” In reply to this specious objection let it be observed,

1. That this maxim, whatever confidence our opponents place in it, is a very insufficient barrier for the defence of truth, if the objection implies, that it is calculated to defend truth against error, and not error against truth as well. For it is notorious, that there is hardly any extravagance, in the whole compass of the distinguishing peculiarities of religious practice, that is not barricadoed by this very maxim. If Protestants use it against Papists, Papists in their turn use it against Protestants. If the Quakers are pursued and foiled when they occasionally quit this fort, they soon rally their controversial forces, and, entrenching themselves behind the strength of this maxim, become again victorious. Whence passive obedience and non-resistance? Whence an opposition to all forensic swearing, in common with profane? Whence the Quakers’ nonconformity to what other serious Christians consider as lawful? Their peculiar mode of salutation and address? Their method of conducting religious worship? The little stress they lay on the observance of the christian Sabbath? &c. Whence the popish absurd figment of transubstantiation, apostolical succession, extreme unction? &c.—On the contrary,

2. Not to distinguish between the positiveness and morality of a precept, ordinance or duty, and not to ascertain their respective degrees; and to deny that the latter distinction admits of moral reasoning, inference and analogy, open a wide door to bigotry, and numberless glaring abuses of the sacred oracles. By rejecting the analogy of faith and the design of scripture herein, we give the most effectual encouragement to every senseless intrusion. And what is still more remarkable is, that the more firmly any one adheres to the undistinguishing positive scheme, in reference to any christian ordinance whatever, the more closely will he be allied to the interest of genuine bigotry. For it has a direct tendency to make the unprescribed circumstances of a positive rite, essential to the rite itself, and consequently to make that necessary and essential which the institutor has not made so. How far this is applicable to the antipædobaptist’s cause, will be further considered.—The doctrine that teaches the propriety of yielding our reason to positive institutions as such, or in the degree they are so, is just and proper, as founded on the sovereign, absolute and manifest authority of the Supreme Legislator; and in this view it has been of singular service in refuting the cavils of deistical impiety. But to carry the principle any further, tends to betray the cause of christianity into the hands of infidels, and to breed unhallowed party zeal and uncharitable animosities among its sincerest professors. “For who are most likely to put weapons into the hands of infidels; they, who seem to discard reason in the investigation of truth, or they, whose researches are founded on her most vigorous exertions, and most rational decisions?—They, who make scripture bow to their preconceived notions, in direct opposition to the dictates of reason and common sense, or they, whose arguments are founded on a coalition of scripture and right reason?” Once more,

3. The objection, as it includes Mr. B.’s favourite maxim, and tends to oppose the distinction above stated, involves a great inconsistence with itself. For on what principle, except what they affect to discard, do our opponents retain some of the positive rites of the New Testament and reject others? Why regard baptism and the eucharist as of standing obligation; while the pedilavium and feasts of charity (the former enjoined expressly by our Lord, and both practised by the disciples of the apostolic age, see John xiii. 14, 15. 1 Tim. v. 10. Jude 12.) are judged unworthy of continuance? Why receive females to communion, or adopt the first day of the week for the christian sabbath? How can they justify their conduct in these matters, these circumstances of positive institutions, without undermining their own avowed hypothesis? With regard to the sabbath, indeed, the antipædobaptists are divided among themselves; while some are content with the first day of the week, others observe the seventh. On this point Dr. S. is very open and ingenious; Mr. Addington appeals to an objecting antipædobaptist, “whether he does not think himself sufficiently authorized to keep the christian sabbath, though Christ has no where said in so many words, Remember the first day of the week to keep it holy?” To this the Dr. replies, “There is, I acknowledge, some weight in this objection: and all I can say to it is, that not having yet met with any passage in the New Testament that appears to me to have repealed the fourth commandment, and to have required the observation of the first day, I cannot think myself sufficiently authorized to renounce that, and to keep this.” If the doctor is professedly an observer of the Jewish sabbath, he is consistent with himself, however different from so great a part of the christian world; if not, he and his tenet are at variance: analogy and inferential reasoning have got the better of the positive system, which nevertheless must not be resigned, for fear of worse consequences.

Another objection much insisted on is, “If our Lord has left any thing to be inferred relative to the subject and mode of baptism, being a positive institute; or if he has not delivered himself expressly and clearly in every thing, respecting the question who are to be baptized, and the manner how; it implies a reflexion on his wisdom and goodness.” But this objection is impertinent on different accounts. For,

1. Its force is derived from the supposition that the Institutor was somehow obliged to make his will known to men by one method only. But is the Great Supreme under any such obligations to his absolutely dependent creatures? What should we say of a philosopher, who, having to judge of any important phenomenon in physics, should quarrel with the author of nature, because he had not confined his method of information to one source only, to the exclusion of all others? That his evidence, for instance, was not confined to the information of sense, to the exclusion of reason and analogy? Or what should we say of a person, who having to decide on the truth and reality of a miracle, should impeach the wisdom and goodness of his Maker, because he did not appeal to one sense only of his dependent and unworthy creatures, that of seeing, for instance, to the exclusion of that of hearing? The answer is plain, and the application easy.

2. The objection is guilty of another impertinence, nearly allied to the former: it unreasonably requires positive evidence for what is discoverable by other means. It is demonstrable, and I think has been demonstrated, that the qualifications of the subjects of baptism (the mode also will be examined in its place) is what cannot possibly be determined by any positive rule whatever as such, but must be resolved to the discretionary nature of the commission, or the supposed wisdom and prudence of the administrators, in common with other parts of the same commission, such as the choice of an audience, the choice of a concionatory subject, &c. Preach the gospel to every creature, is a part of the commission, but the execution has no positive rule. Nor does this commission of preaching the gospel prohibit preaching the law, for a lawful use, or any branch of natural religion, notwithstanding Mr. B.’s excluding standard, that “positive laws imply their negatives.” In like manner, the commission to baptize believers, and the taught, we contend and prove, does not mean to include all sorts of believers and taught persons, but such of them as the administrators judge fit, according to the rules of christian prudence and discretion. And we further insist, as shall be more fully shewn hereafter, that the terms of the commission, believers and taught, stand opposed, not to non-believers and untaught, but to unbelievers and persons perversely ignorant. What, therefore, falls necessarily to the province of inferential reasoning, is impertinently referred to a positive standard.

3. The objection implies an ungrateful reflexion on the Institutor’s wisdom and goodness, contrary to what it pretends to avoid. And this it does, by counteracting and vilifying those natural dictates of reason, prudence and common sense, that our all-wise and beneficent Creator has given us—his goodness, in not suspending their operations, but leaving them in full force, as to these circumstances of positive duties—his wisdom, in grafting what is positive of his laws on these common principles—and finally, the favourable circumstance of his diminishing the degree of positiveness in New Testament institutions, as well as their number.

Let us now recapitulate what has been said in this chapter—From an investigation of the nature of positive precepts and duties, as distinguished from moral ones, together with their comparative obligations and importance, we have seen, that, in any case of supposed competition, the latter claims an undoubted preference. We have also seen, that nothing but absolute, decisive, discernible authority can turn the scale in favor of the former, or, indeed, place any law or duty in the rank of POSITIVE. Moreover, it has been shewn, that every duty resulting from any discernible moral relation, must needs be classed among moral duties; that some things appertaining to the very essence of baptism, on our opponents’ own principles, are of moral consideration; particularly the qualifications of proper subjects; consequently, that baptism is an ordinance of a mixed nature, partly positive and partly moral. Of all which an unavoidable consequence is, that our opponents’ outcry against all moral and analogical reasons in our enquiries respecting the subjects and mode of baptism, is impertinent and absurd, and to a demonstration contradictory to their own avowed principles.

Dr. Williams on Baptism.