The Subjects of
Baptism
By Dr. Wilhelmus à Brakel
We have thus held before you
baptism and its essential nature. It is evident that baptism is the first New
Testament sacrament, a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, instituted by
God, and its administration commanded by the Lord Jesus to His apostles—and in
them to all ministers. This administration consists in the act of immersion or
sprinkling with clean water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Ghost, thereby signifying and sealing to believers the cleansing of
the soul from the guilt and pollution of sin by the blood and the Spirit of
Christ, as well as the incorporation into the congregation of Christ so that
through faith, love, and holiness, they may glorify God, be an ornament to the
church, convict the unconverted, and stir up believers.
The Subjects of Baptism
In addition to that which has
been said, it is necessary that we also consider the subjects of baptism; that
is, those to whom baptism must be administered. These are not clocks or
similar objects which the Papists baptize, thereby dreadfully desecrating
baptism. Rather, the objects must be men, and then the true believers among
men. Only true believers are entitled to the use of the sacraments. However,
since the church is not authorized to require assurance of the probability of
regeneration as the foundation upon which the minister may administer the
sacraments to someone, all who have made confession of their sins, of their
faith in Christ, and of their determination to follow in the footsteps of Jesus
and to lead a life which is in harmony with their confession, may rightfully
and in good conscience be baptized. If the persons who are baptized are either
unconverted or hypocrites, they are responsible and baptism is not a seal to
them. They are neither partakers of the covenant nor are they entitled to its
benefits. This is confirmed in the following passages: "And were baptized
of him in Jordan, confessing their sins. I indeed baptize you with water unto
repentance:... Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance" (Mat.
3:6-11, 8); "Repent, and be baptized every one of you" (Acts 2:38);
"...if thou believest
with all thine heart, thou mayest" (Acts 8:37).
If someone has therefore
entered into the covenant— whether it be in truth or in an external sense— and
has been baptized, they are also obligated to surrender their children to
Christ by way of the covenant and thus permit them to be baptized, as the
covenant has also been made with their children. Before we prove this, we must,
for a further exposition of infant baptism, make a few prefatory remarks.
The Baptism of Children
First, children to be baptized
must 1) not be children of Jews, Muslims, heathens, or heretics, even if a
member of the covenant has adopted them as children, for such adoption does not
change the fact that they were not born within the covenant; 2) not be
abandoned children in a country where the true church is not found, or if the
true church is present, is filled with Jews, Muslims, heathens, Socinians, and
other heretics, for such children can belong to the latter as well as to
members of the covenant; 3) not be children of parents who have both been
excommunicated— having been born subsequent to this excommunication— since such
parents must be considered as heathens (Mat. 18:17); and 4) not be children who
as yet are unborn, or who are miscarried— as the Papists do.
Instead, they must be
1) children of members of the
covenant; that is, one or both must be members of the covenant (1 Cor. 7:14);
2) they may also be children
of members of the covenant who are born as a result of adultery; or 3) children
of those who are under censure, for the son shall not bear the iniquity of the
father.
Secondly, the place where
children ought to be baptized has not been determined by Scripture and does not
belong to the essence of baptism. However, where the church conducts public
worship services, it is edifying that it take place during a worship service.
Thirdly, subsequent to the breaking
of the covenant of works, God established a covenant of grace with man. Never,
that is, neither in the Old nor in the New Testament has He established an
external covenant wherein both converted and unconverted alike would be members
on equal footing, such that God, upon external obedience, would have promised
some external benefits, regardless of what name may be given to this covenant,
such as a national, typical, worldly, or external covenant. One may therefore
not baptize children in reference to an external covenant, but only in
reference to the covenant of grace.
Fourthly, one can view elect
children either as they are from God's perspective, or as they are in
themselves. God knows them as being elect, as heirs of eternal life, and as
being redeemed through the death of their Surety, Jesus Christ. As they are in
themselves, they are identical to all other children, missing the image of God,
having the image of the devil, without the seed of faith, without regeneration
and the least gracious inclination, without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit,
and thus, hateful and worthy of condemnation. Therefore, the basis for their
baptism is neither^ a measure of grace which they have within themselves, nor
eternal I election, which is hidden for us.
Fifthly, God could either
partially or fully sanctify children from infancy on. All children would have
entered the world as being perfectly holy if Adam had not sinned. This was the
condition in which Christ was born (being perfectly holy), and in which elect infants
are, who at their death are sanctified as perfectly as an adult believer is
sanctified. God generally does not do this, however. Even if He does so with
certain persons by way of exception, it is neither a precedent nor clear proof
of this. Therefore, we state again that the basis for the baptism of children
is not some inherent quality.
Sixthly, baptism is a sign and
a seal, and thus has no other function but a signifying and sealing function.
It neither works grace by way of inherent efficacy, nor is it an external sign
whereby, whereupon, or wherewith God works regeneration. It is not comparable
to what Christ did to make the miracle very obvious, availing Himself of
something tangible in the performance of His miracles; nor is it comparable to
the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit being communicated by the laying on of
hands. Thus, the gracious operations of the Spirit are not bound to the time or
the administration of baptism. Baptism also does not bring the child into an
internal state other than was previously the case, and God does not love the
child with the love of His delight any more than before. Rather, the entire
efficacy of baptism consists in this— that it seals the covenant of grace and
all its promises to the child. This is not to suggest that the child has / them
already, but rather that the child is entitled to them and that God will
accomplish this in this child. It is thus similar to the manner in which future
benefits are sealed to adult believers.
Seventhly, all children of
members of the covenant (irrespective of whether these members are converted or
unconverted) who die in infancy—be it prior to or after the administration of
baptism — must be considered as saved by virtue of God's covenant in which they
were born and in consequence of which they are children of the covenant. If the
parents are unconverted and unfaithful to the covenant, this will be imputed to
their account, for the son will not bear the iniquity of the father. One must
also consider them to be true partakers and children of the covenant as they
grow older, until they show by their deeds that they are unfaithful to the
covenant and thus are no partakers of its promises. They then do not fall out
of grace, nor is the seal nullified; rather, it is a proof that baptism was not
a seal for them and that they have never truly been in the covenant. When,
however, some are converted after leading a sinful life, baptism was a seal
unto them, and they were thus truly included in the covenant and in very deed
are partakers of its benefits, being entitled to them already since their
childhood. This is true, even though between their baptism and conversion there
was but an external resemblance to members of the covenant— in reference to
both their personal spiritual state and sound judgment of others. Baptism only
seals the elect.
Eighthly, the form for baptism
asks of parents and witnesses, "Whether you acknowledge... that they
(their children) are sanctified in Christ, and therefore, as members of His
church ought to be baptized?" In order to understand this question
correctly, it must be noted:
(1) This form addresses
members of the covenant and speaks of their children.
(2) To be sanctified does not
imply that the children at that moment are in truth possessors of the principle
of faith, regeneration, and sanctification. It also does not imply that all
baptized children are, and particularly, that my child is elect, will be
converted, and be a partaker of salvation. Rather, it means in a general sense
that children of members of the covenant, by virtue of the covenant made with
them and their children, are entitled to its benefits and will become partakers
of them. This is in distinction to the children of those who are not members of
the covenant and for whom there are no promises in the Word. The salvation of
the latter, if they die in infancy, is a matter which pertains to the sovereign
and secret dealings of God, there being no foundation in regard to which
something can be stated about them. And as long as children of members of the
covenant manifest nothing which is either in their favor or disfavor, we may
not discriminate among them, but by reason of the promise must deem them to be
children of God until the contrary manifests itself. Therefore, to be
sanctified in Christ means to be a partaker of Christ.
(3) To be sanctified does not
mean to be included in an external covenant, for there is no external covenant.
The parents have the \ salvation of their child in view, and not something of
an external) nature. The sacraments are not seals of an external covenant, but
only of the covenant of grace, and signs and seals of the righteous- J ness of
faith. Also the child is acknowledged as being sanctified in Christ, which
cannot be said in reference to an external covenant.
It is furthermore acknowledged
that the child is sanctified prior to baptism, and therefore ought to be
baptized. The child therefore does not become a member of the covenant by
virtue of baptism; he was already a member prior to baptism, and prior to the child's
baptism there was also no other covenant but the covenant of grace.
(4) Some wish to change the
form and say, "to be sanctified in Christ, or those who are sanctified,
must be sanctified in Christ." This is the result of ignorance and
misunderstanding concerning this matter. If they wish these words to mean
something different than to be in the covenant of grace (which appears to be
the intent), I cannot understand on what basis they let their children or other
children be baptized, since there is no other foundation for baptism but the
covenant of grace, of which baptism is a seal.
The Scriptural Defense for the
Baptism of Children
Having said this by way of
introduction, we must now consider the following question:
Question: May and must children
of members of the covenant be baptized?
Answer: Anabaptists,
Socinians, and Brownists answer negatively, but we answer in the affirmative
for the following reasons:
First, in the Old Testament
children of members of the covenant had to be circumcised; therefore they must
also be baptized in the New Testament. The first part of the statement is above
controversy. The argument for the conclusion is as follows:
(1) Since there is one and the
same covenant in both testaments, and this identical covenant also pertains to
the children of the Old Testament who were obligated to receive the seal of
circumcision, this is also true in the New Testament and they must therefore be
baptized.
(2) Baptism has come in the
place of circumcision; the external sign has changed, but the seal is the same.
"In whom also ye are circumcised... buried with Him in baptism" (Col.
2:11-13). He who is baptized is said to be circumcised, since they are in
essence one and the same sacrament.
(3) In both sacraments the
same matter is signified and the purpose is identical: cleansing by the blood
and the Spirit of Christ. If children had to be circumcised then, they must
also be baptized today.
Secondly, children were
baptized in the Old Testament. "…that all our fathers were under the
cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the
cloud and in the sea" (1 Cor. 10:1-2). It is irrefutable that all their
children were included here (Exo. 10:24). In a manner comparable to being
baptized by immersion in water, they were all in the sea, and the water in the
cloud which was always above them, covered them. This baptism was a seal of
their spiritual deliverance, having escaped from the hands of Pharaoh by the
water of the sea. They were overshadowed by the cloud— and thus protected
against the heat of the sun and the Lord Jesus was present in this cloud (Exo.
14:24). If children were then baptized as members of the covenant, they must
also presently be baptized, for they are as much members of the covenant now as
they were then.
Thirdly, the children of
members of the covenant are in the covenant, and they therefore are also
entitled to the seals of the covenant. Their inclusion in the covenant is
evident in Genesis 17:7, "And I shall establish My covenant between Me and
thee and thy seed after thee in their generations." This was not only true
in the Old but also in the New Testament, for believers from among the Gentiles
also are Abraham's seed and are thus included in that covenant. "…that he
might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not
circumcised" (Rom. 4:11). Peter also confirms this: "Ye are the
children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers,
saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be
blessed" (Acts 3:25). Add to this 1 Corinthians 7:14, where we read,
"...else were your children unclean; but now are they holy." They do
not have internal holiness, as has been proven in the above; rather, they are
called holy because one of the parents is a believer, thereby being in the
covenant. The holiness of such children is therefore a covenantal holiness.4
An external covenant does not exist, for there is but one covenant between God
and believers: the covenant of grace. The children of members of the covenant
are therefore in the covenant. In this respect the Lord calls them His
children. "Moreover thou hast taken thy sons and thy daughters, whom thou
\ hast borne unto Me... that thou hast slain My children" (Ezek. 1 16:20-21).
If they are in the covenant, they must also indeed receive \ the seal of the
covenant. This is evident in Acts 2:38-39, where we read, "…be baptized
every one of you…for the promise is unto you, and to your children."
Fourthly, children are
partakers of the benefits of the covenant, the merits of Christ, the promises,
and salvation itself. "But Jesus said. Suffer little children, and forbid
them not, to come unto Me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven" (Mat.
19:14). These were not children in the spiritual sense of the word,
characterized by humility, but rather natural children who were brought to
Jesus, and who were kept away from Him by others, since they were deemed to be
too unimportant. The Lord Jesus declares them to be partakers of the kingdom
of heaven, of which one cannot be a partaker except through Christ. Who then
would dare to exclude those children from heaven who die in infancy? Consider
also Acts 2:39, where we read that the promise is to your children. Those who
are partakers of the promises of the covenant are also entitled to the seal of
the covenant and its promises.
Objection #1: Nowhere is a
command found to baptize children.
Answer:
(1) Scripture has been given
to rational people who know that all must be understood to be members of the covenant
who are in the covenant— whether this is the husband, the wife, or the
children.
(2) It also is not written:
Baptize a man, or baptize a woman, nor are they mentioned by first and last
name.
(3) We read in Genesis 17:12,
"And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man
child in your generations." In Acts 2:38-39 we read, ". ..be baptized
every one of you... for the promise is unto you, and to your children."
Objection #2: Children cannot
benefit from this; they do not understand it, and they frequently cry when they
are baptized.
Answer:
(1) One must not be wiser than
God who has thus commanded it.
(2) Any additional objections
would also be applicable to the circumcision of children.
(3) The parents are comforted
by baptism. It obligates and stimulates them to view their children as members
of the covenant and to raise them as such. And when children come to the years
of discretion, they may derive as much benefit from it as persons who are
baptized as adults.
Objection #3: Christ was not
baptized until he was thirty years old; we must therefore also wait with
baptism until children come to the years of discretion.
Answer:
(1) We would have to conclude
from this that one cannot be baptized before thirty years of age. This is
refuted by their own practice.
(2) The institution of baptism
was not until that time.
(3) Christ had been
circumcised in His youth.
Objection #4: One ought first
to be instructed, repent, and believe before being permitted to be baptized
(cf. Mat. 28:19; Acts 2:38; 8:37-38; Mark 16:16).
Answer:
(1) It is also written,
"...if any would not work, neither^ should he eat" (2 Th. 3:10).
Should we then deprive children of food? ) Who does not see that in both cases
the reference is to adults?
(2) We may not baptize any
children except those of members of the covenant. Therefore, parents must first
become members of the covenant, and as far as they are concerned, instruction,
repentance, and faith must precede. These texts therefore do not run counter
to the baptism of children of members of the covenant.
It bothers me that he rejects the baptism of adopted children, because they are supposedly outside the covenant. I can think of a couple of biblical admonitions counter to that. First is that baptism is commanded for the "household" of the believer. Second is that our adoption as sons of God makes us co-heirs with Christ, so the adoption of children brings them into the same blessings as birth-children. And third, Ishmael was circumcised, even though he was explicitly excluded from the covenant of promise.
ReplyDeleteYes, it bothered me, too. I corresponded with the translator over this and essentially he agreed with me that a Brakel was wrong. He went on to say that this shows why we need to read, even our great forefathers, with discernment and hold everything to the standard of Scripture. It alone is infallible.
DeleteIt bothered me three Andy. Of course, as a Lutheran, I have numerous other objections, but I was surprised by that statement from a Brakel.
DeleteI didn't post this segment because I agreed with it and I was heartily encouraged by the interaction. That tells me that at least some folks reading in a Berean manner, bringing everything, even the works of our venerable forefathers to the bar of Scripture.
Delete