28.4 Section IV

    Section IV.—Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptised.

Exposition This section relates to the subjects of baptism. That baptism is to be administered to all adult persons who profess their faith in Christ and obedience to him, and who have not been baptised in their infancy, is admitted by all who acknowledge the divine institution of this ordinance. But there are many who confidently assert that baptism ought to be confined to adults. These were originally called Anabaptists, because they rebaptised those who had received baptism in their infancy, and Antipaedobaptists, because they were opposed to the baptism of infants. They now assume the name of Baptists; but this designation we cannot concede to them, if it be intended to insinuate that others do not baptise, and are not baptised, agreeably to the principles of the gospel. Our Confession affirms, that "the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptised." This might be confirmed by numerous arguments; but only a few of them can be here stated with the utmost brevity. 1. The infants of believing parents are to be considered as within the covenant, and therefore entitled to receive its seal. The covenant which God made with Abraham was substantially the same with that under which believers now are. This appears by comparing Gen. xvii. 7, where the covenant made with Abraham is expressed, with Heb. viii. 10, where the new covenant is expressed. In the one, the promise is: "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; and in the other: "I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people." We thus find, that when God established his covenant with Abraham, he embraced his infant seed in that covenant; and that the promise made to Abraham and to his seed is still endorsed to us is evident from the express declaration of the Apostle Peter (Acts ii. 39): "The promise is unto you, and to your children." If children are included in the covenant, we conclude that they have a right to baptism, the seal of the covenant. 2. Infants were the subjects of circumcision under the Old Testament dispensation; and as baptism under the New Testament has come in the room of circumcision, we conclude that infants have a right to baptism under the present dispensation. That, under the Old Testament, the infants of God’s professing people were to be circumcised, cannot be doubted; for the command is express: "Every man-child among you shall be circumcised."—Gen. xvii. 10. That baptism has now come in the room of circumcision is evident from Col. ii. 11, where it is called "the circumcision of Christ." It must therefore follow, either that the privileges of the Church are now greatly abridged, or else that the children of the members of the Church now are to be admitted to baptism, as they were to circumcision under the former dispensation. 3. That the children of professing Christians are members of the visible Church, and therefore entitled to baptism, appears from the words of our Saviour (Luke xviii. 16): "Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of God." By "the kingdom of God," we apprehend is to be here understood the Church on earth; and if children are members of the visible Church, it cannot be denied that they have a right to baptism, the sign of admission. But if by "the kingdom of God" be understood the state of glory, the inference is strong that, being heirs of eternal life, they ought not to be denied that ordinance which is the seal of their title to it. 4. The warrantableness of infant baptism may lie inferred from the commission of the apostles to baptise "all nations," which certainly includes infants; and from the practice of the apostles, who baptised "households," upon a profession of faith by their domestic heads. Paul baptised Lydia "and her household," the Philippian jailer "and all his," and "the household of Stephanas."—Acts xvi. 15, 33; 1 Cor. i. 16. "Now, though we are not certain that there were young children in any of these families, it is highly probable there were. At any rate, the great principle of family baptism, of receiving all the younger members of households on the faith of their domestic head seems to be plainly and decisively established. This furnishes ground on which the advocate of infant baptism may stand with unwavering confidence." 5. That the infants of believing parents ought to be baptised; and that it is sufficient if one of the parents be a member of the visible Church, is evident from 1 Cor. vii. 14: "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy." "The word unclean, in almost all instances in the Scriptures, denotes that which may not offered to God, or may not come into his temple. Of this character were the heathen universally; and they were, therefore, customarily and proverbially, denominated unclean by the Jews. The unbelievers here spoken of were heathen, and were, therefore, unclean. In this sense, the children born of two heathen parents are here pronounced to be unclean also, as being, in the proper sense, heathen. To be holy, as here used, is the converse of being unclean, and denotes that which may be offered to God. To be sanctified, as referring to the objects here mentioned, is to be separated for religious purposes, consecrated to God - as were the firstborn, and vessels of the temple; or to be in a proper condition to appear before God. In this text it denotes, that the unbelieving parent is so purified by means of his relation to the believing parent, that their mutual offspring are not unclean, but may be offered unto God. There is no other sense in which a Jew could have written this text, without some qualification of these words. The only appointed way in which children may be offered to God is baptism. The children of believing parents are, therefore, to be offered to God in baptism." The objections usually brought forward against the warrantableness of infant baptism, are either frivolous in themselves, or proceed from mistaken views of the ordinance. Is it urged, that in the New Testament we have no express injunction to baptise the infants of professing Christians? This, we reply, is precisely what might have been expected, because the Church-membership of the children of God’s professing people was fully established under the Old Testament, and their admission by the rite of circumcision was a privilege well known, and universally extended to them; so that, unless it had been designed to abridge the privileges of the children of believing parents under the New Testament, there was no occasion for any explicit injunction to baptise their children. But no hint is given in the New Testament that the privilege of infants, which had been so long enjoyed under the former dispensation, was to be withdrawn; and as the privilege is not revoked, it must be continued. Is it asked, What benefit can infants derive from baptism? With equal propriety, we reply, it might have been asked, What benefit can a child, eight days old, derive from circumcision? To put such a question is almost impious, because it implies an impeachment of the wisdom of God. He appointed circumcision to be administered to infants under the Old Testament; and with equal propriety is baptism administered to them under the New Testament. Is it objected, that we have no express example of the baptism of infants under the New Testament? All the cases of baptism recorded in the New Testament, we reply, are cases in which it was administered to converts from Judaism or Paganism to Christianity; and if we do not find it explicitly stated, that any infant born of Christian parents was baptised, as little do we find any example of those who were born of Christian parents being baptised in adult age. This entirely accords with our practice at the present day. We baptise adult converts from among Jews or Heathens; and as the apostles baptised "households" on the faith of their domestic heads, we also, consider ourselves warranted to baptise the children of professing Christians. But those who defer the baptism of the children of professing Christians until they arrive at adult age, have no precedent or example for their practice; for, though the Book of the Acts contains the history of the Church for upwards of thirty years, in which time the children of those who were first baptised by the apostles must have reached maturity, yet we have no record of the baptism of a single individual born of Christian parents. From this silence, we justly infer that they must have been baptised in their infancy; and we defy the advocates of adult baptism to adduce a single scriptural example of their practice. Is it urged, that infants cannot profess their faith in Christ? We reply, that when faith, or the profession of it, is spoken of as a prerequisite to baptism, it is always supposed that the subjects of it are capable of instruction; and that if this proved anything, it would prove too much; for this objection, if valid against infant baptism, must also be valid against infant salvation, since the Scripture connects faith and the profession of it, in the case of adults, with the one as well as the other.