Section 1182
VII. The last thing considered in this debate is, the ordinance of Baptism
And it would have been writing out of character, indeed, to have attacked a Baptist, and not have meddled with his denomination principle. And,
1. I observe, “that the controversy about the time and mode of baptism, appears to him of no great moment; seeing Baptism itself is an outward ordinance, or a mere ceremony, though of Christ’s institution: nor is it mentioned in the commission given to St Paul, who was the apostle of the Gentiles.” [5510] But pray, were not all the apostles sent to the Gentiles, into all the world, to each all nations? And was not the ordinance of baptism in the commission given to them all? What, though Baptism is an outward ordinance; yet, since it is of Christ’s institution, it must be of considerable moment to know and be satisfied, who are the proper subjects of it, and in what manner it should be performed. An ordinance of Christ should not be treated as an indifferent thing, to whom, or how it is administered; or whether it is attended to or not.
2. This man has many wise reasonings upon the mode of Baptism: “I allow, says he, [5511] that if baptism with water be efficacious, and does operate to the purifying of the conscience, and cleansing of the heart, then the more water the better.” I do not transcribe the sentence that follows, to avoid defiling of paper with the indecency of his expressions, since they add no force to his argument: would he be concluded by his own reasoning, he, and the rest of the Poedobaptists, ought to be the last that should drop the practice of immersion; for who are they that say that baptism is efficacious to internal purposes? Not the Baptists, who insist upon persons making a profession, and giving proof of their repentance towards God, and faith in Christ; of their being regenerated, and having their hearts and consciences cleansed and purified by faith in the blood of Christ, before they are admitted to this ordinance: But those who say, that “by baptism original sin is taken away, persons are regenerated, made members of Christ, and inheritors of the kingdom of heaven; ” who behave as though they thought there could be no salvation without baptism; when, upon the least indisposition of a new born infant, they are in a hurry to fetch the minister to sprinkle it; these, according to this man’s reasonings, and his own principles, ought to plunge it. He goes on: “but if baptism be only declarative and significative, then a handful of water, poured or sprinkled on the face (the chief part of the body, and the seat of the soul) may answer this purpose as well, if a serious profession of christianity go along with it, as well as sprinkling the whole congregation of Israel, 18.”
Here our author entertains us with considerable hints: not the heart, as some; nor the brain, as others; nor the glandula pinealis, but the face is the seat of the soul. He does not, indeed, tell us what part of the face; but leaves us to conclude it must be the forehead, since there the sign of the cross is made in baptism: but be it so, that the face is the chief part of the body, and the seat of the soul; and that baptism is declarative and significative, as it is of the sufferings, death, burial and resurrection of Christ, see 5, Colossians 2:12. Not sprinkling or pouring a handful of water upon the face, but immersion or covering the whole body in water, only can be declarative and significative of these things; and therefore the former cannot as well answer the purposes of baptism as the latter. But, says this man, “it may do as well as sprinkling the whole congregation of Israel.” Very right, provided it was done by the same authority, and for a like end; but then, this is no instance of a part being put for the whole, or of the sign put for the thing signified. This our author, upon a review of his work when printed off, saw; and therefore, in his table of the errors of the press, one big enough for a folio volume, and which might have been still made larger, he has corrected this passage; and would have it read thus, “as well as sprinkling the twelve pillars, served instead of sprinkling the whole congregation of Israel.”
But how does it appear, that not the people, but the twelve pillars, were sprinkled instead of them? not one syllable is said of sprinkling the pillars in 18, only the people; for it is expressly said, that Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people; and the author of the epistle to the Hebrews confirms it, by saying, that he sprinkled both the book and all the people. (Hebrews 9:19) However, if sprinkling water on the face in baptism will not do as well as this, it will “as well, says this writer, as eating one morsel of bread and tasting wine may signify and declare a person’s faith in the death, and the second coming of Christ, to as good purpose, as eating a meal or drinking a full cup in remembrance of him.” I answer, the case is not parallel, for baptism does not merely signify and declare a person’s faith in the sufferings, death, burial and resurrection of Christ, but the things themselves; and therefore, though eating a morsel of bread and tasting the wine may, in the Lord’s Supper, answer the purpose of that ordinance, as well as a full meal or cup; yet sprinkling or pouring water on the face in baptism will not answer the end of that ordinance, as well as immersion or covering the body in water. After all, a clogging clause is put into this argument, which is, that this may do as well, “if a serious profession of christianity go along with it.” And of the same kind is the following paragraph, “if there be the answer of a good conscience, or a sincere profession of christianity, and a hearty resolution to serve Christ, which is the moral, or spiritual part of baptism, I do not think our Lord and Master will be so scrupulous as some of his disciples are about the mode.”
But where is the answer of a good conscience, or a sincere profession of christianity, or a hearty resolution to serve Christ, in infants, for that of others for them can be of no avail, when water is sprinkled or poured upon their faces? We are obliged to this man, that he will vouchsafe to own us to be the disciples of Christ, we desire to be followers of him in every ordinance, and in this; the mode of which he has taught us, without any scruple, by his own example. Our author goes on, and observes, that “if the washing the principal part, instead of the whole, be a more safe way for health, and a more decent way upon the rules of chastity, I think it the better way; and that there is room to apply that sacred proverb, which our Lord applied on another occasion, God will have mercy, not sacrifice; for he always prefers morals to rituals.” This is the old rant, that has been answered over and over; and must be despised and treated as mere calumny, by all that know the safety and healthfulness of cold bathing, which now generally obtains; or have seen with what decency this ordinance is performed by us. He adds, “If St Paul made so little account of the external part of baptism, 17, what would he have said to a controversy about the mode of using it?” It seems from hence, that baptism has an internal part as well as an external one; though before it is called an outward ordinance, and a mere ceremony. But what was the little account the apostle Paul made of it? Though he was not sent only or chiefly and principally to baptize, but to preach the gospel; and he thanks God, that he had baptized no more of the Corinthians, since they made such an ill use of it: yet it does not appear, that he at any time, or in any respect, made light or little account of it; since no sooner had he any intimation of it, as his duty, but he submitted to it; as did Lydia and the Jailor, with their households, and many of the Corinthians, if not as administered by him, yet by his order, and with his knowledge and consent; and, was he now on the spot, would soon put an end to the controversy about the mode of it, could he be attended to, though I fear he would be little regarded by persons of this man’s complexion; for since so little regard is had to his doctrines, there would be very little shown to his sense, either of the mode or subjects of an ordinance.
3. The time of baptism is next considered, which, with this writer, is but another word for the subjects of it; for we have no controversy about the precise time of baptism, the question with us, is not whether an infant is to be baptized as soon as born, or at eight days, or when a month old; but whether it is to be baptized at all or no; nor whether adult persons are to be baptized at thirty years of age, or whether at Whitsuntide, or any other time of the year; but whether believers, and such that profess themselves, and are judged to be so, and they only, are to be baptized. This author says, that “it is certainly very proper that parents devote their children to God; which they may do by prayer, without baptizing, for which they have no warrant; and that they enter them as infant-disciples in the school of Christ, in order to become his actual scholars as soon as capable.” But this is beginning wrong, and perverting the order which Christ has fixed, that persons should first be taught and made disciples, and then baptized; and not first baptized, and then made disciples. He asks, “Is it not as proper that this be done by the visible ceremony of baptism, as for the Jewish children to be entered into their church by circumcision?” He ought first to prove, that Jewish children were entered into their church by circumcision; and then that it is the will of God, or appointment of Christ, that infants should be entered into the christian church by baptism; and that baptism succeeds circumcision, and for such a purpose; neither of which can ever be made good. He further asks, “If parents make a profession of the christian faith at the baptism of their children, and also enter into public engagements to give them a christian education, are not as good ends, as to practical religion, answered by the baptism of christians children, as by the baptism of adult persons?” I answer, that parents may do these things if they please, without baptizing their infants; nor were these ever designed as ends to be answered by baptism in any; a profession of faith should be made by the party baptized, and that before baptism. After a little harangue upon the virtue of washing the body with water, intimating, that this cannot make a person one jot holier, or secure from sin in future life, which nobody ever affirmed, he owns, that “penitent confession of sin, profession of faith in Christ, and engagement to a new life, were the conditions of baptism to all Jews and Gentiles; ” which, as we believe they are, we desire to have them continued so; for this we contend.
This Dialogue is concluded with some distinctions about zeal, and some censures upon the Particular Baptists, and their preachers, for their blind, bodily, immodest and uncharitable zeal; which, if guilty of, this man is a very improper person to be a rebuker, since he has shown so much intemperate heat against men, whom he himself owns to be the disciples of Christ; and against doctrines held by all the reformed churches. I wish he may appear of another spirit in his second part, which he has given us reason to expect.
I would fain persuade this author, to leave this pamphleteering way of writing, and appear undisguised. He seems to be fond of engaging in a controversy with the Baptists upon the above points, which require a larger compass duly to consider, than he has taken. I am a Baptist, he may call me, if he pleases, a new Baptist, or an old Calvinistical one, or an Antinomian; it is a very trifle to me, by what name I go. I have published a treatise upon the doctrine of the Trinity, another upon the doctrine of Justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ; and lately three volumes against the Arminians, and particularly Dr. Whitby; in which are considered the arguments, both from scripture and reason, on both sides of the question; and am now preparing a fourth, in which the sense of the christian writers before Austin will be given upon the points in debate: if this Gentleman thinks it worth his while to attend to any, or all of them, and enter into a sober controversy on these subjects, I shall readily join him; and, in the meantime, bid him farewell, till his second part is made public.