The Second London Confession On Baptism (Part 1): The Significance of Christian Baptism

By Robert P. Martin

Robert P. Martin, Ph.D., is Pastor of Emmanuel Reformed Baptist Church, Seattle, WA, and Editor of Reformed Baptist Theological Review.

In a preface entitled, “To the Judicious and Impartial Reader,” the framers of the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (2ndLCF) describe its relation to other great English confessions of the Seventeenth Century. They assert that “the substance of the matter is the same” as in the First London Confession (1stLCF, 1644); however, they also note that “that Confession is not now commonly to be had.”[1] Also, since the publication of the 1stLCF, the (Presbyterian) Westminster Assembly had made significant advances in expressing the tenets of orthodox, Reformed, Puritan religion. The Congregationalists recognized this and wherever possible adopted the language of the Westminster Confession (1648) in their Savoy Declaration (1658). In this climate, agreeing with the Presbyterians and the Congregationalists “in all the fundamental articles of the Christian Religion,” the framers of the 2ndLCF chose to follow the Congregationalists’ example: “we have no itch to clogge Religion with new words, but do readily acquiesce in that form of sound words, which hath been, in consent with the holy Scriptures, used by others before us.”[2]

The Baptist framers of the 2ndLCF were eager to express oneness with their paedobaptist brethren in the “fundamental articles” of Puritan religion; and yet, “in those things wherein we differ from others, we have exprest ourselves with all candor and plainness that none might entertain jealousie of ought secretly lodged in our breasts, that we would not the world should be acquainted with.”[3] In that category was their doctrine of baptism. On this point the 2ndLCF differs markedly from the Westminster and Savoy-so markedly that An Appendix was added to the 2ndLCF to defend that difference.[4] Such a step was taken on no other point of doctrine.

The framers of the 2ndLCF spoke with “all candor and plainness,” yet they did not wish their spirit to be misunderstood.

Contention is most remote from our design in all that we have done in this matter: and we hope the liberty of an ingenuous unfolding our principles, and opening our hearts unto our Brethren, with the Scripture grounds on which our faith and practise leanes, will by none of them be either denyed to us, or taken ill from us.[5] 

Although we do differ from our brethren who are Paedobaptists. .. yet we would not be from hence misconstrued, as if the discharge of our own consciences herein, did any wayes disoblige or alienate our affections, or conversation from any others that fear the Lord. .. . Let it not therefore be judged of us (because much hath been written on this subject, and yet we continue this our practice different from others) that it is out of obstinacy, but rather as the truth is, that we do herein according to the best of our understandings worship God, out of a pure mind yielding obedience to his precept, in that method which we take to be most agreeable to the Scriptures of truth, and primitive practise.[6]

Reformed Baptists still agree with our Reformed paedobaptist brethren on the fundamental articles of the Christian faith. And yet, after three centuries, the gap between us on the question of baptism remains. That difference will not be removed until the full light of heaven dispels all remaining darkness from our understanding. Then truth will need no exposition or defense. Until then, we are obliged to follow our consciences in the way that we think best accords with Scripture. And we are bound to give reasons for our faith and practice, not only hopefully to persuade those who differ from us, but also to instruct those who believe and act as we do.

We take up the exposition of the 2ndLCF’s article Of Baptism in the same spirit in which it was first published and defended. With our forefathers, we say, “Contention is most remote from our design.” We ask only that the reader exercise a Berean spirit, receiving what is written with an open mind, yet searching the Scriptures whether these things are so.

The Significance of Christian Baptism (2nd LCF 29.1)

Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death, and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of his giving up into God through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.

The focus of this paragraph is the significance of Christian baptism for the person baptized. Baptism, of course, is important to the church. In submitting to this ordinance “ordained by Jesus Christ,”[7] the candidate assures the church of his intention to obey Christ in all things. And yet, because fundamentally baptism symbolizes the special relation between Christ and the believer himself, it is especially relevant for the person who submits to it. Focusing on this, the Confession says that baptism is “to be unto the party baptized, a sign.” But of what is baptism a sign? What reality does Christian baptism symbolize? The Confession answers that Christian baptism symbolizes to the party baptized three things: his fellowship and union with Christ, the forgiveness of his sins, and his commitment to walk in newness of life.

The language of 2ndLCF 29.1 should be compared with Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) 28.1. It is clear that the 2ndLCF adopts (with modification) the WCF’s language. Note (in the part italicized) the WCF’s statement concerning the symbolism of baptism.

Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also, to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ’s own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.

This description of baptism’s relevance is especially interesting when compared to WCF 28.4 (which defines the parties to be baptized). By comparing WCF 28.1 and 28.4, we see that in Presbyterian thought, baptism symbolizes these things to the infants of believing parents as well as to professing believers: “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 baptized.” In other words (again, reading WCF 28.1 in light of 28.4), baptism is also to the baptized infant “a sign and seal. .. of his engrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life.” Baptism is a sign and seal of these things not after but before the infant believes on Christ. Does baptism, then, as it relates to infants, signify realities that do not yet exist and confirm blessings that may never come to pass in the life of the one baptized? More on this below.

On the question of baptism’s significance, comparison of the 2ndLCF with the WCF is very revealing. The 2ndLCF uses the term “sign,” while the WCF uses the terms “sign and seal.” Why this difference? On a superficial level, it is clear that the framers of the 2ndLCF objected to the word “seal.” But why was this the case?

Consider first that the language of WCF 28.1 (that baptism is “unto him [the party baptized] a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,. . .”) builds on the preceding chapter about the nature of the sacraments. WCF 27.1 reads:

Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ, and His benefits; and to confirm our interest in Him; as also, to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church, and the rest of the world; and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to His Word.

Our question is: What does the WCF mean when it uses the words “signs and seals” to refer to the sacraments generally (27.1) and, more specifically, when it uses the words “a sign and seal” to refer to baptism (28.1)?

The word “sign” (as used here) refers to an act that signifies or symbolizes or represents something else. In this case, baptism represents in a visible form (by a visible ritual) a spiritual relationship between Christ and the person baptized. John Murray says:

God condescends to our weakness. He not only unites His people to Christ but He also advertises that great truth by an ordinance which portrays visibly to our senses the reality of this grace. It is a testimony which God has been pleased to give to us so that we may the better understand the high privilege of union with the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. This is the purpose of baptism as a sign.[8]

Making the same point in a different way, the Westminster Larger Catechism (Q. 163), in answer to the question, “What are the parts of a sacrament?” says, “The parts of a sacrament are two; the one an outward and sensible sign, used according to Christ’s own appointment; the other an inward and spiritual grace thereby signified.”

Using the term this way, the WCF says that baptism is a “sign” to the party baptized “of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life” (28.1). On this point, i.e., concerning the meaning of baptism as a “sign,” our Confession agrees.[9] Where it chiefly differs, of course, is on the question of the proper subjects of baptism. 2ndLCF 29.2 says, “Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience, to our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance.” WCF 28.4, however, says, “Not only those who do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one or both believing parents, are to be baptized.”

That baptism is a sign to believers of a spiritual relation to Christ no one disputes. But the question that the WCF’s inclusion of infants raises is: In what way is the baptism of an infant a sign to him of the things signified by baptism, i.e., of his part in the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into (or, union with) Christ, of his regeneration, of the remission of his sins, of his giving up unto God through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life? We will see how paedobaptists answer this question after we consider the second term that the WCF uses, i.e., the word “seal.”

The word “seal” (which the WCF also uses to refer to baptism) is taken from Rom. 4:11, which says of Abraham, “he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while he was in uncircumcision.”[10] G.I. Williamson defines the word “seal” this way: “A seal is something which authenticates or confirms that to which it is affixed or appended.”[11] Concerning the use of this word at Rom. 4:11, John Murray says, “If circumcision signified [Abraham’s] faith, the faith must be conceived of as existing prior to the signification given and, in a way still more apparent, a seal or authentication presupposes the existence of the thing sealed.” Murray then goes on to say, “It is usual to discover a distinction between a sign and a seal; a sign points to the existence of that which it signifies, whereas a seal authenticates, confirms, and guarantees the genuineness of that which is signified.”[12] In his Christian Baptism, Murray applies this distinction between a sign and seal to baptism. We’ve already seen his comment on baptism as a sign: “It is a testimony which God has been pleased to give to us so that we may the better understand the high privilege of union with the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. This is the purpose of baptism as a sign.” Prof. Murray then continues, “And what is its purpose as a seal? As seal it authenticates, confirms, guarantees the reality and security of this covenant grace.”[13]

From the way that the WCF states the matter, and from the way that Presbyterian writers like Williamson and Murray define the terms sign and seal, it appears that the WCF is saying that baptism signifies (i.e., symbolizes) and seals (i.e., authenticates, confirms, guarantees) to all who are baptized, whether to believers or to the infant children of believers, the things which baptism represents, i.e., of the baptized person’s being party to the covenant of grace, of his engrafting into Christ, of his regeneration, of the remission of his sins, and of his giving up unto God through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life. The same doctrine is expressed in the Westminster Shorter and Larger Catechisms and in the Westminster Assembly’s Directory for the Publick Worship of God.[14]

Shorter Catechism Q.94. What is baptism? Answer. Baptism is a sacrament, wherein the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, doth signify and seal our ingrafting into Christ, and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace, and our engagement to be the Lord’s. 

Larger Catechism Q.165. What is baptism? Answer. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, wherein Christ hath ordained the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, to be a sign and seal of ingrafting into himself, of remission of sins by his blood, and regeneration by his Spirit; of adoption, and resurrection unto everlasting life; and whereby the parties baptized are solemnly admitted into the visible church, and enter into an open and professed engagement to be wholly and only the Lord’s. 

Shorter Catechism Q.95. To whom is baptism to be administered? Answer. Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him; but the infants of such as are members of the visible church are to be baptized. 

Larger Catechism Q.166. Unto whom is baptism to be administered? Answer. Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him, but infants descending from parents, either both, or but one of them, professing faith in Christ, and obedience to him, are in that respect within the covenant, and to be baptized. 

Before baptism, the minister is to use some words of instruction, touching the institution, nature, use, and ends of this sacrament, shewing, “That it is instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ: That it is a seal of the covenant of grace, of our ingrafting into Christ, and of our union with him, of remission of sins, regeneration, adoption, and life eternal:. .. That children, by baptism, are solemnly received into the bosom of the visible church, distinguished from the world, and them that are without, and united with believers; and that all who are baptized in the name of Christ, do renounce, and by their baptism are bound to fight against the devil, the world, and the flesh: That they are Christians, and federally holy before baptism, and therefore are to be baptized (Directory for the Publick Worship of God).

There is no qualification in the Westminster Standards speaking of any difference between baptism as a sign and seal for believers and as a sign and seal for the infant children of believers.[15] Nevertheless, a difference exists. Unlike in the case of believers, who present themselves for baptism, who come professing their faith in Christ, infants profess no faith in Christ and do not present themselves for baptism. If baptism signifies and seals the same things in infants as in believers, what then is to be done with this difference? Recognizing the validity of this question, some Presbyterians want to qualify the doctrine of the WCF in a way that the Confession itself does not.

James Bannerman’s The Church of Christ is arguably the finest work in print expounding and defending Presbyterian ecclesiology.[16] His treatment of the sacraments, which constitutes a major part of volume two, represents one way that Presbyterians expound and qualify the WCF’s doctrine of baptism.[17]

On the meaning of “sign” and “seal,” Bannerman’s view agrees with what we’ve seen already in Williamson and Murray: “The Sacraments of the New Testament are sensible signs of spiritual blessings, teaching and representing by outward actions Gospel truths.”[18] And, “The Sacraments of the New Testament are federal acts affording a seal or confirmation of the covenant between God and His people.”[19]

When describing the sacraments generally, Bannerman speaks of “a federal transaction between the believer and Christ,” with the sacraments being “visible and outward attestations or vouchers of the covenant entered into between them” and “seals to vouch and ratify and confirm its validity.”[20]

[The Sacraments] presuppose and imply a covenant transaction between the man who partakes of them and God; and they are the attestations to and confirmations of that transaction, pledging God by a visible act to fulfil His share of the covenant, and engaging the individual by the same visible act to perform his part in it.[21]

When speaking of the sacraments generally, however, Bannerman restricts his comments to the case of believers only,[22] following the lead of the Shorter Catechism (Q.91 and Q.92).[23]

Shorter Catechism Q.91. How do the sacraments become effectual means of salvation? Answer. The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them, or in him that doth administer them; but only by the blessing of Christ, and the working of his spirit in them that by faith receive them. 

Shorter Catechism Q.92. What is a sacrament? Answer. A sacrament is an holy ordinance instituted by Christ, wherein, by sensible signs, Christ, and the benefits of the new covenant, are represented, sealed, and applied to believers.

Interestingly, the Larger Catechism (treating the same question) does not restrict the efficacy of the sacraments to believers.

Larger Catechism Q.161. How do the sacraments become effectual means of salvation? Answer. The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not by any power in themselves, or any virtue derived from the piety or intention of him by whom they are administered, but only by the working of the Holy Ghost, and the blessing of Christ, by whom they are instituted.

In Larger Catechism Q.162, “What is a sacrament?” the answer is that “a sacrament is an holy ordinance instituted by Christ in his church, to signify, seal, and exhibit unto those that are within the covenant of grace, the benefits of his mediation.” And in Q.166, not just believers but the infants of believers are declared to be “in the covenant, and [therefore] to be baptized.” This language accords with what we saw above concerning Shorter Catechism Q. 94 and Q.95 and WCF 28.1 and 28.4. The Westminster Standards, therefore, seem inconsistent on this point. The question is, according to the Westminster Standards, in baptism are the benefits of the New Covenant “represented, sealed, and applied to believers” (SC Q.92) or to believers and their infant children (LC Q.165, Q.166, Q.167; SC Q.94, Q. 95)?

Bannerman’s solution to this problem is to treat infant baptism as “exceptional, and not to be taken as completely bringing out the full and primary idea of the Sacrament.”[24] Following on with the subject of the sacraments generally, he says:

Christ, in the Sacrament, and by means of its sensible signs, gives Himself and the benefits of the new covenant, spiritually, although under an outward representation, to the believing participator. The outward signs of the Sacrament exhibit, then, a twofold action: the believer giving himself to Christ in covenant, and Christ giving Himself to the believer in the same covenant.[25] 

But [the Sacraments] are more than signs of a covenant thus entered into between the two parties,-they are seals and vouchers for the covenant, serving to give confirmation and validity to the engagement, as one never to be broken. In the Sacraments there is a twofold seal, as well as a twofold action, represented. There is a seal on the part of Christ, and there is a seal on the part of the believer. In marvellous condescension to our infirmity and unbelief, Christ has been pleased to add to the promise of His covenant an outward and visible voucher for it,-thereby, as it were, binding Himself doubly to the fulfilment of it, and pledging Himself, both by word and by sign, to implement all its terms. And in the worthy receiving of the Sacrament, the believer gives also a visible voucher for his part of the engagement,-thereby placing himself under new and additional obligations to give himself to Christ, and adding the outward seal to ratify the inward pledge of his heart.[26]

Thus far, Bannerman has been treating the subject of the nature and efficacy of the sacraments in general. Turning now to the efficacy of baptism in particular, he says:

The efficacy of Baptism in the case of adults may be understood from what has been already said of the nature of the Sacraments in general. Baptism, like the Lord’s Supper, is a sign and seal of a federal engagement between the receiver and Christ. It presupposes the existence of justifying and saving grace in the person baptized; and it seals or attests that grace to the soul, in this manner becoming the means of further grace. 

There is a meaning in the fact that the person receiving the Sacrament has a part to perform in the ordinance,-that in the Lord’s Supper he personally takes and partakes of the elements of bread and wine, and that in Baptism he personally submits himself to and receives the sprinkling of water. In both Sacraments there is a personal act on the part of the participator, which has its spiritual meaning, which cannot and ought not to be overlooked in the transaction. That act forms the link that connects the receiver of the ordinance with the ordinance itself; and the spiritual faith embodied in the act forms the link which connects his soul with the covenant blessings which the ordinance represents. The Sacrament is a seal, then, of more than the covenant generally; it is a seal of the covenant in its appropriation by the believer to himself personally in the ordinance.[27] 

In other words, the Sacrament is not merely a seal of the covenant offered, or exhibited, or declared in general, but a seal of the covenant appropriated by the believer in particular, and, through means of his own spiritual act in the ordinance as well as Christ’s, received in his personal experience. 

In the case of Baptism administered to a believing adult, his own personal part in the ordinance, when he presents himself to the sprinkling of water, is the sign of that spiritual act of his through which the blessings of justification and regeneration, represented in the Sacrament, have previously become his; and Baptism is to him a seal not merely of these blessings as exhibited and promised in the covenant generally, but of these blessings realized and enjoyed by himself. Through the channel of his faith, and by means of the Spirit in the ordinance, Baptism becomes a seal in his justification and regeneration, and so a means of grace and spiritual blessing to his soul. 

Such is the efficacy of Baptism administered to an adult believer. What is the virtue or efficacy of the ordinance when administered to infants incapable of faith, although not incapable of being made partakers in the grace which the Spirit confers? In entering on the consideration of this delicate and difficult subject, it is necessary, in order to clear our way to it, to lay down one or two preliminary propositions of much importance in the discussion. 

First, The proper and true type of Baptism, as a Sacrament in the Church of Christ, is the Baptism of adults, and not the Baptism of infants.. .. It is abundantly obvious that adult Baptism is the rule, and infant Baptism the exceptional case; and we must take our idea of the ordinance in its nature and effects not from the exception, but from the rule.. .. The Sacrament in its complete features and perfect character is to be witnessed in the case of those subjects of it whose moral and intellectual nature has been fully developed and is entire, and not in the case of those subjects of it whose moral and intellectual being is no more than rudimental and in embryo. Infants are subjects of Baptism in so far as, and no farther than their spiritual and intellectual nature permits of it. And it is an error, abundant illustration of which could be given from the writings both of the advocates and opponents of infant Baptism, to make Baptism applicable in the same sense and to the same extent to infants and to adults, and to form our notions and frame our theory of the Sacrament from its character as exhibited in the case of infants. It is very plain, and very important to remember, that the only true and complete type of Baptism is found in the instance of those subjects of it who are capable both of faith and repentance, not in the instance of those subjects of it who are not capable of either. The Bible model of Baptism is adult Baptism, and not infant.[28] 

Bearing in mind these preliminary remarks, what, I ask, are the effects of Baptism in so far as regards infants baptized?[29] 

In the case of adults, we know that Baptism is fitted and designed not to confer faith, but rather to confirm it,-not to originate grace, but to increase it,-not to effect that inward change of regeneration by which we are numbered with the children of God, or that outward change of justification by which we are accepted of Him, but to seal these blessings before bestowed. With adults, Baptism is not regeneration or justification, but the seal of both to the regenerated and justified man. And in the case of infants, the Sacrament cannot be regarded as accomplishing without their faith, what in the case of adults with their faith, it fails to accomplish. In other words, infant Baptism is not infant regeneration or justification, any more than in the instance of adults.[30]

What then is the effect of baptism on infants? Bannerman continues:

I. Baptism, in the case of all infants baptized, gives to them an interest in the Church of Christ, as its members.[31] 

II. Baptism, in the case of all infants baptized, gives them a right of property in the covenant of grace; which may in after life, by means of their personal faith, be supplemented by a right of possession.[32] 

Now, to apply this distinction to the case in hand, a right of property in the blessings of the covenant of grace is conferred by the gift and promise of God, made over to every man who hears the Gospel message addressed to him. “And this is the record, that God has given to us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.” [1 John 5:11] This right of property in the blessings of the covenant of grace, belonging to every man, is written down in these words. The charter which every man has, bearing in it inscribed his right of property to these blessings, is the revealed Word of God. This is the first and superior title. But in itself it is incomplete, and inadequate to put him into the personal possession of his heritage. It requires to be supplemented by another title, before he can actually enjoy the salvation so made over to him by right of property, and certified by God’s word and promise. To his right of property there must be added a right of possession; and this latter is obtained by means of his own personal act of faith, appropriating to himself the salvation before made over to him. The Word of God addressed to him, giving him a right of property in the blessings of the covenant, and his faith receiving that Word, giving him a right of possession, complete the full and perfect title to the blessing; and both together admit him to the enjoyment of it. There are many, who have the right of property in the covenant of grace, who never complete their title by seeking for themselves a right of possession in it. The Word of God giving the one, is not supplemented by the faith in that Word which would confer the other; and hence they are never put in actual possession of the salvation of which they are invited to partake. 

Now, what the Word of God addressed to the intelligent and responsible adult is, that Baptism is when administered to the unconscious and irresponsible infant. The word of God’s promise, giving a right of property in His covenant to all who hear it, cannot penetrate the silent ear, nor reach the unconscious spirit of the little child. That word cannot convey to its mind the glad tidings of its covenant right to God’s grace. But is it therefore denied that right, which adults have by the hearing of the ear and the perception of the understanding, in connection with the word of promise addressed to them? Not so. If the outward word that speaks the promise of God cannot pierce to its dormant spirit,-sleeping in the germ of its moral and intellectual being,-the outward sign, that represents the promises of God, can be impressed upon it, giving to the unconscious infant, as the word gives to the intelligent adult, a right of property in the blessing of the covenant. And that is much. The infant, sprinkled with the water of that Baptism which is a sign of the covenant, has-even as the adult addressed with the word of the covenant has-a right of property in the blessings which the covenant contains; and in after life he may, by his own personal act, supplement his right of property by a right of possession obtained through faith.[33] 

In this respect there is an obvious distinction between the Baptism of infants and the Baptism of adults. Infants are not capable of faith and repentance; and Baptism can be to infants no seal of the blessings which these stand connected with, at the time of its administration. But it may become a seal of such blessings afterwards, when the child has grown to years of intelligence, and has superinduced upon his Baptism a personal act of faith, and thereby become possessed of the salvation which he had not before. In such a case, he can look back upon his Baptism with water, administered in the days of his unconscious infancy; and through the faith that he has subsequently received, that Baptism which his own memory cannot recall, and to which his own consciousness at the time was a stranger, becomes to him a seal of his now found salvation. In adults it is otherwise; and the difference is appropriate to their condition as adults. Baptism to the believing adult is a seal at the moment of his interest in the covenant of grace; a sensible attestation of the blessings of justification and regeneration, of which at the time he is in possession, through the exercise of his faith contemporaneously with his Baptism. In the case of the adult, Baptism is a present seal in connection with the faith which he presently has. In the case of the infant, it is a prospective seal in connection with the faith which he has not at the moment, but which he may have afterwards. The full enjoyment of the benefits of the ordinance the adult experiences at the moment of its administration, in virtue of the faith which at the moment makes him a partaker in the blessings of the covenant. The full enjoyment of the benefits of the ordinance the infant cannot experience at the moment of its administration, in virtue of his incapacity of faith; but it may be experienced afterwards, when, in consequence of his newly formed faith in Christ, he too is made partaker of the covenant, and can look back in believing confidence on his former Baptism as a seal.[34]

The distinction that Bannerman proposes is welcome; yet it isn’t at all plain that it represents the teaching of the Westminster Standards.

Indeed, not every Presbyterian acknowledges the distinction that Bannerman makes. For example, John Murray says:

It has appeared to many paedobaptists that it is necessary to distinguish between the efficacy of baptism as it applies to adults and as it applies to infants.[35] There does not seem to be good warrant for this distinction. Baptism has one import, and it bears this same import whether it is dispensed to adults or to infants. It signifies union with Christ, purifying from the pollution of sin by regeneration of the Spirit, and purifying from the guilt of sin by the blood of Christ. It can have no other import for infants than this. As a sign and seal of such grace the sign and seal must have the same efficacy for infants as for adults. It is, of course, true that in the case of adults the possession of the grace signified and sealed is inseparable from the exercise of intelligent faith and repentance. And in administering baptism to adults the church requires an intelligent and credible confession of such faith. The possession of the grace signified by baptism does not presuppose in the case of infants the exercise of intelligent faith and repentance: they are not yet psychologically capable of such. And the church cannot require any intelligent and credible profession on their part. The accompaniments of the grace signified by baptism and the prerequisites for its administration differ in the respective cases. But it is a mistake to think that the import or signification differs. Baptism signifies union with Christ and membership in his body. It means this for both adults and infants. And so, in respect of efficacy, baptism is for infants precisely what it is for adults, namely, the divine testimony to their union with Christ and the divine certification and authentication of this great truth. Though infants are not capable of the intelligent exercise of faith, they are, nevertheless, susceptible to God’s efficacious grace in uniting them to Christ, in regenerating them by His Spirit, and in sprinkling them with the blood of His Son. This grace, in the bonds of an everlasting covenant, infants may fully possess. This is what baptism signifies and seals, and no warrant can be elicited for the assumption that in respect of efficacy this sign or seal has any other effect in the case of infants than in the case of adults. The efficacy of baptism in all cases is that it is God’s testimony to and seal upon the reality and security of the grace which He bestows in accordance with the provisions of the covenant of grace.[36]

While Prof. Murray is unwilling to make the distinction that Bannerman proposes, his approach is not without its own qualification:

To suppose that we may entertain any confidence respecting the covenant grace signified and sealed by our baptism, if we are destitute of godly fear, if we break God’s covenant, and walk contrary to his commandments, would be contradiction. The fear of the Lord, the keeping of his covenant, and obedience to his commandments are the means through which and the conditions upon which those who have received the pledge of God’s faithfulness may entertain the assurance and comfort of His faithfulness.. . 

Hence the sign and seal of baptism can be no pledge or guarantee to us of that which baptism signifies except as we are mindful of God’s covenant, embrace its promises, discharge its obligations, and lay hold in faith upon the covenant faithfulness of God.. .. Respecting infant baptism we must ask: what comfort or assurance may we entertain regarding infants who have been baptised? In this connection, also, the same principle has to be noted and stressed. The Scripture does not extend to parents who have received baptism for their children, nor to the church of God, an assurance or guarantee that the children concerned are without condition the partakers of the grace signified and sealed by baptism. The faith of God’s covenant grace and promise cannot be entertained in respect of children and children’s children in abstraction from covenant keeping and faithfulness.. . While the nature of baptism warns us against abuse and, when properly interpreted, precludes all presumptuous wresting of God’s promise, yet the ordinance of infant baptism is intended to encourage and confirm faith in the covenant faithfulness of God. Baptism is the sign and pledge and seal that God’s mercy is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear Him and His righteousness unto children’s children.. . . 

The efficacy of infant baptism principally consists in this that it is to us the certification or seal that God works in accordance with this covenant provision and fulfils His covenant promises. It is, after all, the Lord’s own nurture which infant baptism signifies and seals.[37]

Prof. Murray’s qualification seems to undo itself to some degree before the end. On the one hand, “The Scripture does not extend to parents who have received baptism for their children, nor to the church of God, an assurance or guarantee that the children concerned are without condition the partakers of the grace signified and sealed by baptism.” On the other hand, “the ordinance of infant baptism is intended to encourage and confirm faith in the covenant faithfulness of God.” Faithfulness to whom? Apparently to believers and their infant seed. “The efficacy of infant baptism principally consists in this that it is to us the certification or seal that God works .. .. It is, after all, the Lord’s own nurture which infant baptism signifies and seals.”[38] Is Prof. Murray saying that the “no guarantee” doctrine notwithstanding, believers may be certain that, cooperating with their godly parental nurture of their children, God will work and by his own divine nurture bring to pass in their children that which their baptism signifies? Is the seal that is not really a seal really a seal at the end of the day?

At this point, we may be excused if we’re confused. On the question of baptism being a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, etc., the Westminster Standards make no distinction between adults and infants. And yet some qualification must be made to avoid the error of thinking that baptism is a guarantee that the baptized infant is elect and certainly will be regenerated and saved. While we welcome the qualifications that some Presbyterian writers make, yet in practice these qualifications often are lost on the ordinary Christian who brings his or her child to the baptismal font. There, if the form for the sacrament of baptism found in The Directory for the Publick Worship of God is typical of Presbyterian practice, the qualifications are nowhere in sight.[39]

What has all this to do with 2ndLCF 29? The answer is that because the framers of the 2ndLCF (in the historical setting in which they worked) deliberately were rejecting the doctrine of the Westminster Standards, we must understand their language in this light. They said:

Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life. (2ndLCF 29.1)

This language applies only to believers, who profess faith in Christ, who by faith are joined to Christ, who have laid hold personally to the gospel promise of the remission of sins, and who personally have committed themselves “to live and walk in newness of life.” As 2ndLCF 29.2 says, “Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience, to our Lord Jesus, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance.” It is, of course, possible that false believers will be baptized (cf., Simon Magus, Acts 8), and for them, baptism has no such significance; yet for true believers, baptism signifies these things, as is evident from even a superficial reading of the texts cited (cf., Rom. 6:3–5; Col. 2:12; Gal. 3:27; Mk. 1:4; Acts 22:16).

Our Confession does not use the word “seal” to refer to baptism. The reason is simple. The Bible never uses this word (σφραγίς) to refer to baptism but only to refer to Abraham and to the faith that he had prior to his circumcision (Rom. 4:11). Paul does not then go on to take up the subject of baptism.[40] In fact, he never says that circumcision was a seal to any other than to Abraham. As Arnold says:

This passage is sometimes used as an argument for Infant Baptism; and the words “sign” and “seal” are applied to the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, as if they were the proper key words with which to open the doctrine of the “Christian Sacraments,” as they are often called.. .. That the words “sign” and “seal,” in this passage, were not designed, and are not happily adapted for such a use, may be very easily shown. In the first place, there is nothing in the connection to indicate that Paul had in his mind any thought of Baptism or the Lord’s Supper when he wrote this passage. In the second place, what is here said of circumcision is true of that rite only in the case of Abraham, and not at all of his posterity. It was indeed to him, what it was not at all to them personally, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised. Since, then, these words would be unsuitable and untrue as an account of circumcision when applied to the posterity of Abraham, how much more are they unsuitable and untrue as an account of baptism when applied to the children of Christian believers.[41]

The verb form (σφραγίζω) is used of the Christian’s sealing by the Holy Spirit (2 Cor. 1:22; Eph. 1:13; 4:30), but again there is no reference to baptism in these places. Our Confession is silent on baptism as a seal because the Scriptures are silent on baptism as a seal.

The doctrine of the 2ndLCF is that baptism is a “sign” only. We deny that baptism is a “seal” in the way that the Westminster Standards use that term (or in any way whatever, since the Bible never uses the term “seal” to speak of baptism). In the Presbyterian system, the use of the terms “sign” and “seal” to refer to a sacrament which may be administered to infants produces a number of conundrums which to date have not been resolved. Chief among these is the question of how baptism is a seal when it is no guarantee. No such questions attach to our Confession’s doctrine, which is that the ordinance of Christian baptism is a symbolic “ceremony of Christian profession”[42] that signifies to the party baptized (i.e., to the professing believer) his fellowship and union with Christ, the forgiveness of his sins, and his commitment to walk in newness of life. While we believe that the ordinances are means of grace which God blesses by the working of his Spirit to strengthen the faith of believers (cf., 2ndLCF 14.1), we concur in Bannerman’s characterization of the system we hold, that “the Sacraments have no virtue except as badges of a Christian profession, and signs of spiritual truths.”

Notes

1. A Confession of Faith. Put forth by the Elders and Brethren of many Congregations of Christians (baptized upon Profession of their Faith) in London and the Country (1677; facsimile ed. B & R Press: Auburn, MA, 2000), vii-viii.
2. Ibid., ix-x.
3. Ibid., x.
4. Ibid., 109-142.
5. Ibid. xi.
6. Ibid., 110-11.
7. This phrase picks up threads woven earlier into the Confession. Christian Baptism, “ordained by Jesus Christ” (29.1), as a form of worship observed in Christian churches (and, as distinguished from its counterfeits), meets the test of the regulative principle, for its origin is not in “the imagination and devices of men” (22.1) but is “an ordinance of positive and sovereign institution; appointed by the Lord Jesus the only Law-giver” (28.1).
8. John Murray, Christian Baptism (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1977), 87. Italics his.
9. I am not persuaded that the difference in language between 2ndLCF and WCF on the precise significance of baptism is of any great consequence. I do not believe that, by omitting the WCF’s references to the covenant of grace and regeneration, the framers of the 2ndLCF were denying that baptism is a sign of these things in any way whatever. Their exposition of Rom. 4:11; Col. 2:11–12; and Tit. 3:8 differed from that of the Presbyterians, and certainly it had a close relation to their differing views of the lawful subjects of baptism; yet I do not think that their conclusions were so different that the 2ndLCF men were denying any possible significance in baptism concerning the covenant of grace and regeneration. It seems that they simply restricted their language to those subjects on which the testimony of Scripture was plainest.
10. The WCF cites Rom. 4:11 with Col. 2:11–12 as scripture proof of the doctrine of baptism as a “seal.”
11. G.I. Williamson, The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1964), 200.
12. John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, in The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1959), 1:137–138.
13. Murray, Christian Baptism, 87.
14. Besides the places cited, see also Larger Catechism Q.167, which refers to “the privileges and benefits conferred and sealed thereby [i.e., by means of baptism],” citing Rom. 6:3–5 in support. Implied by citing this text is that union with Christ in his death and resurrection is “conferred and sealed” by baptism. The Sum of Saving Knowledge also uses unqualified language when speaking of the benefits that infants receive from baptism. “In the word of God preached by sent messengers, the Lord makes offer of free grace to all sinners, upon condition of faith in Jesus Christ; and whosoever do confess their sin, accept of Christ offered, and submit themselves to his ordinances, he will have both them and their children received into the honour and privileges of the covenant of grace. By the sacraments, God will have the covenant sealed for confirming the bargain on the foresaid condition.” (Head III). “I. By these outward ordinances [including the sacraments], as our Lord makes the reprobate inexcusable, so, by the power of his Spirit, he applies unto the elect, effectually, all saving graces purchased to them in the covenant of redemption, and maketh a change in their persons. In particular, 1. He doth convert or regenerate them. .. . 2. He gives them saving faith. .. . 3. He gives them repentance. .. . 4. He sanctifies them. .. . II. Together with this inward change of their persons, God changes also their state: for, so soon as they are brought by faith into the covenant of grace, 1. He justifies them. .. . 2. He reconciles them. .. . 3. He adopts them. .. .” (Head IV). Do these changes pertain to infants at the time of their baptism? In some cases, apparently so. Though WCF 28.5 says that “grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it [i.e., baptism],. .. that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated,” yet the prayer (suggested) to accompany the baptism of an infant in The Directory of Publick Worship asks, “That the Lord, who has not left us as strangers without the covenant of promise, but called us to the privileges of his ordinances, would graciously vouchsafe to sanctify and bless his own ordinance of baptism at this time: That he would join the inward baptism of his Spirit with the outward baptism of water; make this baptism to the infant a seal of adoption, remission of sin, regeneration, and eternal life, and all other promises of the covenant of grace: That the child may be planted into the likeness of the death and resurrection of Christ; and that, the body of sin being destroyed in him, he may serve God in newness of life all his days.” These changes, if they take place, apparently do so on the warrant of the parent’s faith, the infant being “at this time” incapable of fulfilling the “condition of faith in Jesus Christ.” Italics mine.
15. The same is not true with reference to those who may lawfully partake of the Lord’s Supper. See Larger Catechism, Q.177. The Lord’s Supper is to be offered “only to such as are of years and ability to examine themselves.” Why is this standard not also applied to baptism? WCF 28.5-6, while containing important qualifications to 28.1, does not distinguish between professed believers and infants.
16. James Bannerman, The Church of Christ, 2 vols. (reprint ed., Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1960).
17. See Ibid., 2:1–127.
18. Ibid., 2:6.
19. Ibid., 2:8.
20. Ibid., 2:10
21. Ibid., 2:12
22. Designating in various ways as, e.g., “rightful participator” (Ibid., 2:13), “right receiver” (Ibid., 2:14), “worthy receiver” (Ibid., 2:15).
23. Ibid., 2:14–15.
24. Ibid., 2:16.
25. Ibid., 2:17
26. Ibid., 2:18–19
27. Ibid., 2:106–107.
28. Ibid., 2:108–109.
29. Ibid., 2:111.
30. Ibid., 2:112. Italics his.
31. Ibid.
32. Ibid., 2:113–114.
33. Ibid., 2:114–115. How can “the outward sign” be “impressed upon” the unconscious infant in a way comparable to the preached word’s impression on an intelligent adult?
34. Ibid., 2:116–117. Italics his.
35. At this point Prof. Murray adds a footnote taking issue with Bannerman, which reads in part: “But this type of argument for distinguishing between the efficacy of infant baptism and adult baptism appears to rest upon a fallacy, namely, the fallacy of failing to lay sufficient emphasis upon the fact that that which is signified and sealed by baptism is not necessarily mediated by the intelligent exercise of faith and repentance. That which is signified by baptism, namely, union with Christ, regeneration, and justification, is not in the case of infants mediated by intelligent faith. Yet infants may possess these graces to the fullest extent. Infants may have full possession of that which baptism signifies, and it is the possession that baptism signifies and seals.” Italics his. On Bannerman’s view of “infants regenerated in infancy,” see The Church of Christ, 2:117–121.
36. Murray, Christian Baptism, 88–90.
37. Ibid., 91-93.
38. Italics mine.
39. With this compare the form suggested in some editions of the Trinity Hymnal (Philadelphia: The Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 1961), 666–667 of the 10th printing, 1973.
40. The subject of baptism isn’t introduced until Rom. 6:3.
41. Albert N. Arnold and D.B. Ford, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, in An American Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Alvah Hovey (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1889), 315.
42. J.L. Dagg, Manual of Theology and Church Order (reprint ed., Harrisonburg, VA: Gano Books, 1982), 2:70.