Section 1190
VII. We are now come to the last thing in the debate, the ordinance of Baptism
What is said upon this point may be reduced to these two heads, the subjects and the mode.
1. The subjects. The probability of the Jews baptizing the children of Gentile proselytes; of the apostles understanding and executing their commission, in conformity to their Jewish notions and customs; and of the early baptism of infants in the christian church, this writer thinks is ground sufficient for the practice, that is, of infant-baptism. But is it probable that there was such a practice among the Jews, before the coming of Christ, to baptize their proselytes and their children? since there is not the least hint of it, nor any allusion to it in the writings of the Old Testament, in which dispensation this practice is said to obtain; nor in the apocryphal writings of the Jews; nor in the writings of the New Testament; nor in those of Philo and Josephus, both Jews, and well versed in the customs of their nation; nor even in the Misna itself, a collection of their traditions; the authors and compilers of that have not the least syllable of this practice in it. This man, therefore, has either mistook his authors, or they have misled him: the truth of the matter is, this rite is first mentioned, not in the Misna, but the Gemara, a work later than the other, of some hundred years after Christ: and was this custom probable, is the probability of it a sufficient ground to establish such a practice upon, as a New-Testament-ordinance? Is it probable that the apostles understood and executed their commission according to their Jewish notions and customs, though it does not appear, nor is it probable that they had any such as this; and not rather according to the plain mind and meaning of their Lord and Master, who by his example and doctrine had taught them both how, or in what manner, and whom they should baptize? what probability is there of the early baptism of infants in the christian church? and, if there was, is that a sufficient foundation? Should there not be a plain proof for what claims the name of an ordinance, a positive institution, a part of religious worship? does it appear that any one infant was baptized by John, by Christ, or his orders, or by his apostles, or in the two first centuries? There was a talk about infant-baptism in the third century, but it will be difficult to prove a single fact, even in that; and if it could be proved, would this justify a practice that has neither precept nor precedent in the word of God? But it seems it was agreeable to the Jewish customs, to admit proselytes and their children by circumcision, and as soon as capable, to instruct them in religion; and that the Jewish children were entered into their church by circumcision, and so baptism is the only sign of admission into the christian church. To which I answer, as to Jewish customs, we have seen already what foundation there is for them, or probability of them; and as for the Jewish church, it was national, and the children of the Jews, as soon as born, before they were circumcised, belonged unto it, and therefore were not entered by circumcision. The instance produced by this man clearly proves it; for the little children represented in Deuteronomy 29:11, 12, as entering into God’s covenant, and belonging to the congregation of Israel, were not as yet circumcised, see Joshua 5:5, and consequently could not be entered this way. Nor is baptism any admission, or a sign of admission of persons, infants, or adult, into a visible church of Christ; persons may be baptized, and yet not admitted into a church: what visible church of Christ was the eunuch admitted into, when he was baptized, or his baptism a sign of his admission into?
2. The mode of it. That there is any efficacy in baptism, to regenerate persons, take away sin, or make men more holy, is what is never asserted by us; nor do we think that a quantity of water is of any consequence on that account: we affirm it to be declarative and significative of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ; for which reason we contend for the mode of immersion, as being so, and only so. The washing a part, the principal part of the body, this author thinks may stand for the whole. The instance with which he supports this, is in Exodus 24:8. His sense of that passage is, that not the people, but the pillars were sprinkled; which, he imagines, must appear to every man in his senses: though, according to his own account, it did not so appear to some, who thought the twelve young men were sprinkled, instead of the people; and though rejected by the learned Rivet, and others; yea, though Moses, and the author of the epistle to the Hebrews, say not a word of sprinkling the pillars, but affirm that the people were sprinkled. And if this man was in his senses, he would have seen which of these senses would have served his purpose best; for if not the people, but the pillars were sprinkled in their stead, then not a part, a principal part, nor any part of them, were sprinkled; and so no instance of sprinkling or washing a part of the body for the whole. He is now brought to allow that sprinkling, or washing the face, does not signify the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ; though dipping the face or head in water, may do it. But why not go further, and rather say, dipping the whole body in water does it? since we are said to be buried with Christ in baptism, Romans 6:1, Colossians 2:12, which men of sense and learning allow to refer to the ancient mode of baptizing by immersion. Baptism is never called circumcision; nor are persons in baptism said to be crucified with Christ, but to be baptized into his death, and to be buried with him; and which can be represented by no other mode than that of immersion, or covering the whole body in water. But, after all, this way must still be insinuated to be unsafe, and indecent; and the old rant and calumny continued, against the clearest evidence, and fullest convictions to the contrary.
Thus have I considered and replied to the material things objected to the doctrines before in debate. One might have expected, that, in this Second Part, the author would have proceeded on some new subjects. This, to be sure, cannot be the Second Part he formerly intended. Perhaps his long harangue on the freedom of speech, and liberty of writing, is to pave the way for what he has farther to communicate. I am very desirous he should speak out freely, and write all he has to say. What it is he has farther in design, does not yet appear: we must wait patiently, and in the mean time bid him adieu, until he obliges us with his Third Part.