An Appendix to the Answer Concerning Paedobaptism, Text

An Appendix to the Answer Concerning Paedobaptism · Text

AN APPENDIX TO THE ANSWER UNTO TWO Athenian Mercuries, CONCERNING PEDO-BAPTISM.

CONTAINING Twenty ſeven SYLLOGISTICAL ARGUMENTS, proving Infant-Baptiſm a mere humane Tradition. The Gentlemen called the Athenian Society, deſiring in the laſt of the ſaid Mercuries to have Syllogiſms.

Epheſ. 4. 5.

One Lord, one Faith, one Baptiſm.

By B. K.

London, Printed for the Author, and ſold by John Harris at the Sign of the Harrow in the Poultry. MDCXCII.

Price two Pence.

p. 1An Appendix to the Anſwer to two Athenian Mercuries, concerning Infant-Baptiſm, containing divers Syllogiſtical Arguments to diſprove Pedo-Baptiſm, and to prove the Baptiſm of Believers.

Gentlemen,

SInce you deſire Syllogiſms, I have gratified you therein.

Arg. 1. If none are to be baptized by the Authority of the great Commiſſion of our Bleſſed Saviour, Matth. 28. but ſuch who are firſt made Diſciples by being taught; than Inſants, who are not capable to be taught, ought not to be baptized. But none are to be baptized by the Authority of the great Commiſſion of our Bleſſed Saviour, but ſuch who are firſt made Diſciples by Teaching. Ergo, Little Babes ought not to be baptized.

Arg. 2. If Infant-Baptiſm was never inſtituted, commanded, or appointed of God, Infants ought not to be baptized. But Infant-Baptiſm was never inſtituted, commanded, or appointed of God. Ergo, They ought not to be baptized.

As to the Major; If one thing may be practiſed as an Ordinance without an Inſtitution or Command of God, another thing may alſo; ſo any Innovation may be let into the Church.

As to the Minor; If there is an Inſtitution for it, &c. 'tis either contained in the great Commiſſion, Matth. 28. Mark 16. or ſomewhere elſe. But 'tis not to be found in the Commiſſion, nor any where elſe. Ergo.

The Major none will deny.

The Minor I prove thus. None are to be baptized by virtue of the Commiſſion, but ſuch who are diſcipled by the Word, as I ſaid before, and ſo the Greek Word foreign ſignifies.

If any ſhould ſay, Chriſt commanded his Diſciples to baptize all Nations, and Infants are part of Nations, therefore are to be baptized. I anſwer;

Arg. 3. If all Nations, or any in the Nations ought to be baptized before diſcipled; then Turks, Pagans, Unbelievers and their Children may be baptized, becauſe they are a great part of the Nations. But Turks, Pagans and Unbelievers, and their Children, ought not to be baptized. Ergo.

Beſides that, Teaching (by the Authority of the Commiſſion) muſt go before Baptizing, we have proved; which generally all Learned Men do aſſert: if the Inſtitution is to be found any where elſe, they muſt ſhew the Place.

Arg. 4. Faith and Repentance are required of all that ought to be baptized. Infants are not required to believe and repent, nor are they capable ſo to do. Ergo, Infants ought not to be baptized.

The Major is clear, Acts 2, 8, 10, 16 Chapters; and 'tis alſo aſſerted by the Church of England. What is required of Perſons to be baptized? that's the Queſtion. The Anſwer is, Repentance, whereby they forſake Sin; and Faith, whereby they ſtedfaſtly believe the Promiſe of God made to them in that Sacrament.

The Minor cannot be denied.

Arg. 5. That Practice that tends not to the Glory of God, nor to the Profit of the Child, when done, nor in after-times when grown up, but may prove hurtful and of a dangerous Nature to him, cannot be a Truth of God. But the Practice of Infant-Baptiſm tends not to the Glory of God, nor to the Profit of the Child when baptized, nor in after-times when grown up, but may prove hurtful and of a dangerous Nature to him. Ergo. See Levit. 10. 1, 2. where Moſes told Aaron, becauſe his Sons had done that which God commanded them not, that God would be ſanctified by all that drew near unto him; intimating, that ſuch who did that which God commanded not, did not ſanctify or glorify God therein. Can God be glorified by Man's Diſobedience, or by adding to his Word; by doing that which God hath not required? Matth. 16. 9. In vain do you worſhip me, teaching for Doctrine the Commandments of Men: and that that Practice p. 2doth profit the Child, none can prove from God's Word: And in after-times when grown up, it may cauſe the Perſon to think he was thereby made a Chriſtian, &c. and brought into the Covenant of Grace, and had it ſealed to him, nay, thereby regenerated, for ſo theſe Gentlemen in their Mercury, Decemb. 26. plainly intimate, and that Infants are thereby ingrafted alſo into Chriſt's Church. Sure all underſtanding Men know Baptiſm of Believers is not called Regeneration, but only metonymically, it being a Figure of Regeneration. But they ignorantly affirm alſo, that Infants then have a federal Holineſs; as if this imagined Holineſs comes in by the Child's Covenant in Baptiſm, which may prove hurtful and dangerous to them, and cauſe them to think Baptiſm confers Grace, which is a great Error. How can Water, ſaith Mr. Charnock, an external thing, work upon the Soul phyſically? Nor can it, ſaith he, be proved, that ever the Spirit of God is tied by any Promiſe, to apply himſelf to the Soul in a gracious Operation, when Water is applied to the Body: If it were ſo, then all that were baptized were regenerated, then all that were baptized ſhould be ſaved, or elſe the Doctrine of Perſeverance falls to the Ground. Some indeed, ſays he, ſay, that Regeration is conferred in Baptiſm upon the Elect, and exerts it ſelf afterwards in Converſion. But how ſo active a Principle as a ſpiritual Life ſhould lie dead and aſleep ſo many Years, &c. is not eaſily conceived. On Regen. p. 75.

Arg. 6. If the Church of England ſays, that Faith and Repentance are required of all that ought to be baptized, and in ſo ſaying, ſpeak truly, and yet Infants can't perform thoſe things; then Infants ought not to be baptized. But the Church of England ſays, that Faith and Repentance are required of all ſuch, &c. and ſpeak truly, and yet Infants cannot perform theſe things. Ergo, Infants ought not to be baptized.

Object. If it be objected, That they affirm they do perform it by their Sureties.

Anſw. If Suretiſhip for Children in Baptiſm is not required of God, and the Sureties do not, cannot perform thoſe things for the Child: then Suretiſhip is not of God, and ſo ſignifies nothing, but is an unlawful and ſinful Undertaking. But Suretiſhip in Childrens Baptiſm is not required of God, and they do not, cannot perform what they promiſe. Ergo.

Do they, or can they cauſe the Child to forſake the Devil and all his Works, the Pomps and Vanities of this wicked World, and all the ſinful Luſts of the Fleſh? In a Word; Can they make the Child or Children to repent and truly believe in Jeſus Chriſt? for theſe are the things they promiſe for them, and in their Name. Alas, they want Power to do it for themſelves, and how then ſhould they do it for others? Beſides, we ſee they never mind nor regard their Covenant in the Caſe: and will not God one Day ſay, Who has required theſe things at your Hands?

Arg. 7. If there be no Precedent in the Scripture, (as there is no Precept) that any Infant was baptized, then Infants ought not to be baptized. But there is no Precedent that any Infant was baptized in the Scripture. Ergo.

If there is any Precedent or Example in Scripture that any Infant was baptized, let them ſhew us where we may find it.

Eraſmus ſaith, 'Tis no where expreſſed in the Apoſtolical Writings, that they baptized Children. Vnion of the Church, and on Rom. 6.

Calvin ſaith, It is no where expreſſed by the Evangeliſts, that any o…e the Infant was baptized by the Apoſtles. Inſtit. c. 16. Book 4.

Ludovicus Vives ſaith, None of old were wont to be baptized but in grown Age, and who deſired and underſtood what it was. Vide Ludov.

The Magdeburgenſes ſay, That concerning the baptizing the Adult, both Jews and Gentiles, we have ſufficient Proof from Acts 2, 8, 10, 16 Chapters; but as to the baptizing of Infants, they can … no Example in Scripture. … l. 2. p. 469.

Dr. Taylor saith, It is … the perpetual Analogy of … baptize Infants: For beſides that Chriſt never gave any Precept to baptize them, nor ever himſelf p. 3nor his Apoſtles (that appears) did baptize any of them: All that either he or his Apoſtles ſaid concerning it, requires ſuch previous Diſpoſitions of Baptiſm, of which Infants are not capable, viz. Faith and Repentance. Lib. Proph. p. 239.

Arg. 8. If whatſoever which is neceſſary to Faith and Practice is left in the Holy Scripture, that being a compleat and perfect Rule, and yet Infant-Baptiſm is not contained or to be ſound therein, then Infant-Baptiſm is not of God. But whatever is neceſſary to Faith and Practice, is contained in the Holy Scriptures, &c. but Infant-Baptiſm is not to be found therein. Ergo.

That the Scripture is a perfect Rule, &c. we have the Conſent of all the Ancient Fathers and Modern Divines.

Athanaſius ſaith, The Holy Scriptures being Inſpirations of God, are ſufficient to all Inſtructions of Truth. Athan. againſt the Gentiles.

Chryſoſtom ſaith, All things be plain and clear in the Scripture; and whatſoever are needful▪ are manifeſt there. Chryſoſt. on 2 Thess. and 2 Tim. 2.

Basil ſaith That it would be an Argument of Infidelity, and a moſt certain Sign of Pride, if any Man ſhould reject any thing written, and ſhould introduce things not written. Baſil in his Sermon de Fide.

Auguſtine saith▪ In the Scriptures are found all things which contain Faith, manner of Living, Hope, Love, &c. Let us, ſaith he, ſeek no farther than what is written of God our Saviour, leſt a Man would know more than the Scriptures witneſs. Aug. in his 108 Epiſtles to Fortunat.

Theophilact ſaith, It is part of a Diabolical Spirit, to think any thing Divine, without the Authority of the Holy Scripture. Lib. 2. Paſchal.

Iſychius ſaith, Let us who will have any thing obſerved of God, ſearch no more but … which the Goſpel doth give unto us. … 16. on Levit.

… though the Arguments of the Anabaptiſts, from the defect of Command or Example, have a great Uſe againſt the Lutherans, forasmuch as they uſe that Rite every where, having no Command or Example, theirs is to be rejected; yet is it of no Force againſt Catholicks, who conclude the Apoſtolical Tradition is of no leſs Authority with us than the Scripture, &c. this of baptizing of Infants is an Apoſtolical Tradition. Bellarm. in his Book de Bapt. l. 1. c. 8.

Mr. Ball ſaith, We muſt for every Ordinance look to the Inſtitution, and never ſtretch it wider, nor draw it narrower than the Lord hath made it, for he is the Inſtitutor of the Sacraments according to his own Pleaſure; and 'tis our part to learn of him, both to whom, how, and for what End the Sacraments are to be adminiſtred. Ball, in his Anſwer to the New-England Elders, p. 38, 39.

And as to the Minor, 'tis acknowledged by our Adverſaries, it is not to be found in the Letter of the Scripture. And as to the Conſequences drawn therefrom, we have proved, they are not natural from the Premiſes; and though we admit of Conſequences and Inferences if genuine, yet not in the caſe of an Inſtitution reſpecting a practical Ordinance that is of meer poſitive Right.

Arg. 9. If Infant-Baptiſm was an Inſtitution of Chriſt, the Pedo-Baptiſts could not be at a loſs about the Grounds of the Right Infants have to Baptiſm: But the Pedo-Baptiſts are at a great Loſs, and differ exceedingly about the Grounds of the Right Infants have to Baptiſm. Ergo, 'tis no Inſtitution of Chriſt.

As touching the Major, I argue thus; That which is an Inſtitution of Chriſt, the Holy Scripture doth ſhew, as well the End and Ground of the Ordinance, as the Subject and Manner of it. But the Scripture ſpeaks nothing of the End or Ground of Pedo-Baptiſm, or for what reaſon they ought to be baptized. Ergo, 'tis no Inſtitution of Chriſt.

The Minor is undeniable; Some affirm, as we have ſhewed, p. 15. it was to take away Original Sin. Some ſay it is their Right by the Covenant, they being the Seed of Believers. Others ſay, Infants▪ have Faith, and therefore have a Right. Others ſay, They p. 4have a Right by the Faith of their Sureties. Some ground their Right from an Apoſtolical Tradition; others upon the Authority of Scripture. Some ſay, All Children of profeſſed Chriſtians ought to be baptized; others ſay, None but the Children of true Believers have a Right to it. Sure, if it was an Ordinance of Chriſt, his Word would ſoon end this Controverſy.

Arg. 10. If the Children of believing Gentiles, as ſuch, are not the natural nor ſpiritual Seed of Abraham, they can have no Right to Baptiſm, or Church-Memberſhip, by virtue of any Covenant-tranſaction God made with Abraham, But the Children of believing Gentiles, as ſuch, are not the natural nor ſpiritual Seed of Abraham. Ergo.

Arg. 11. If no Man can prove from Scripture, that any ſpiritual Benefit redounds to Infants in their Baptiſm, 'tis no Ordinance of Chriſt. But no Man can prove from Scripture, that any ſpiritual Benefit redounds to Infants in their Baptiſm. Ergo.

Arg. 12. That cannot be an Ordinance of Chriſt, for which there is neither Command nor Example in all God's Word, nor Promiſe to ſuch who do it, nor Threatnings to ſuch who neglect it. But there is no Command or Example in all the Word of God for the baptizing of little Babes, nor Promiſe made to ſuch who are baptized, nor Threatnings to ſuch who are not. Ergo.

That the Child lies under a Promiſe who is baptized, or the Child under any Threatning or Danger that is not baptized, let them prove it, ſince it is denied.

Arg. 13. If no Parents, at any time or times, have been by God the Father, Jeſus Chriſt, or his Apoſtles, either commended for baptizing of their Children, or reproved for neglecting to baptize them; then Infant-Baptiſm is no Ordinance of God. But no Parents at any time or times have been by God commended for baptizing of their Children, &c. Ergo, Infant-Baptiſm is no Ordinance of God.

This Argument will ſtand unanſwerable, unleſs any can ſhew who they were that were ever commended for baptizing their Children, or reproved for neglecting it, or unleſs they can ſhew a parallel caſe.

Arg. 14. If Men were not to preſume to alter any thing in the Worſhip of God under the Law, neither to add thereto, nor diminiſh therefrom, and God is as ſtrict and jealous of his Worſhip under the Goſpel; then nothing ought to be altered in God's Worſhip under the Goſpel. But under the Law Men were not to preſume ſo to do, and God is as ſtrict and jealous under the Goſpel. Ergo.

The Major cannot be denied.

The Minor is clear; See thou make all things according to the Pattern ſhewed thee in the Mount, Exod. 25. 40. and Levit. 10. 1, 2. See how Nadab and Abihu ſped, for preſuming to vary from the Command of God, and Vzzah, tho but in ſmall Circumſtances as they may ſeem to us. How dare Men adventure, this being ſo, to change Baptiſm from Dipping into Sprinkling, and the Subject, from an Adult Believer, to an ignorant Babe? Add thou not unto his Word, &c.

Arg. 15. Whatever Practice opens a Door to any humane Traditions and Innovations in God's Worſhip, is a great Evil, and to be avoided: But the Practice of Infant-Baptiſm opens a Door to any humane Traditions and Innovations in God's Worſhip. Ergo, to ſprinkle or baptize Infants is a great Evil, and to be avoided.

The Major will not be denied.

The Minor is clear, becauſe there is no Scripture-ground for it, no Command nor Example for ſuch a Practice in God's Word. And if without Scripture-Authority the Church hath Power to do one thing, ſhe may do another, and ſo ad inſinitum.

Arg. 16. Whatſoever Practice reflects upon the Honour, Wiſdom and Care of Jeſus Chriſt, or renders him leſs faithful than Moſes, and the New Teſtament in one of its great Ordinances, (nay, Sacraments) to lie more obſcure in God's Word, than any Law or Precept under the Old Teſtament, cannot be of God. But the Practice of Infant-Baptiſm reflects on the Honour, Care and Faithfulneſs of Jeſus Chriſt, and renders him leſs faithful than Moſes, and a great Ordinance, (nay, Sacrament) of the New Teſtament, to lie more dark and obſcure than any Precept under the Old Teſtament. Ergo, Infant-Baptiſm cannot be of God.

p. 5The Major cannot be denied.

The Minor is eaſily proved: For he is bold indeed who ſhall affirm Infant-Baptiſm doth not lie obſcure in God's Word. One great Party who aſſert it, ſay, 'tis not to be found in the Scripture at all, but 'tis an unwritten Apoſtolical Tradition: others ſay, it lies not in the Letter of the Scripture, but may be proved by Conſequences; and yet ſome great Aſſerters of it, as Dr. Hammond and others, ſay, Thoſe Conſequences commonly drawn from divers Texts for it, are without Demonſtration, and ſo prove nothing. I am ſure a Man may read the Scripture a hundred times over, and never be thereby convinced; he ought to baptize his Children, tho it is powerful to convince Men of all other Duties.

Now can this be a Truth, ſince Chriſt who was more faithful than Moſes, and delivered every thing plainly from the Father? Moſes left nothing dark as to matter of Duty, tho the Precepts and external Rites of his Law were numerous, two or three hundred Precepts, yet none were at a loſs, or had need to ſay, Is this a Truth or an Ordinance, or not? for he that runs may read it.

And ſhall one poſitive Precept given forth by Chriſt, who appointed ſo few in the New Teſtament, be ſo obſcure, as alſo the ground and end of it, that Men ſhould be confounded about the Proofs of it, together with the end and ground thereof? See Heb. 3. 5, 6.

Arg. 17. That Cuſtom or Law which Moſes never delivered to the Jews, nor is any where written in the Old Teſtament, was no Truth of God, nor of Divine Authority. But that Cuſtom or Law to baptize Proſelytes either Men, Women or Children, was never given to the Jews by Moſes, nor is it any where written in the Old Teſtament. Ergo, It was no Truth of God, nor of Divine Authority: And evident it is, as Sir Norton Knatchbul ſhews, That the Jewiſh Rabbins differed among themſelves alſo about it: for, ſaith he, Rabbi Elizer expreſly contradicts Rabbi Joſhua, who was the firſt I know of who aſſerted this ſort of Baptiſm among the Jews: For Eliezer, who was contemporary with Rabbi Joſhua, if he did not live before him, aſſerts, that a Proſelyte circumciſed and not baptized, was a true Proſelyte.

Arg. 18. If Baptiſm is of mere poſitive Right, wholly depending on the Will and Sovereign Pleaſure of Jeſus Chriſt, the great Legiſlator: And he hath not required or commanded Infants to be baptized: then Infants ought not to be baptized: But Baptiſm is of mere poſitive Right, wholly depending on the Will and ſovereign Pleaſure of Jeſus Chriſt, the great Legiſlator, and he hath not required or commanded Infants to be baptized. Ergo, Infants ought not to be baptized.

This Argument tends to cut off all the pretended Proofs of Pedo-Baptiſm, taken from the Covenant made with Abraham; and becauſe Children are ſaid to belong to the Kingdom of Heaven, it was not the Right of Abraham's Male Children to be circumciſed, becauſe they were begotten, and born of the Fruit of his Loins, till he received Commandment from God to circumciſe them. Had he done it before, or without a Command from God, it would have been Will-Worſhip in him ſo to have done. Moreover, this further appears to be ſo, Becauſe no godly Man's Children, nor others in Abraham's Days, nor ſince, had any Right thereto, but only his Children, (or ſuch who were bought with his Money, or were proſelyted to the Jewiſh Religion) becauſe they had no Command from God ſo to do, as Abraham had. This being true, it follows, that if we ſhould grant Infants of believing Gentiles, as ſuch, were the Seed of Abraham (which we deny) yet unleſs God had commanded them to baptize their Children, they ought not to do it; and if they do it without a Command or Authority from Chriſt, it will be found an Act of Will-Worſhip in them.

Arg. 19. All that were baptized in the Apoſtolical Primitive Times, were baptized upon the Profeſſion of Faith, were baptized into Chriſt, and thereby put on Chriſt, and were all one in Chriſt Jeſus, and were Abraham's Seed and Heirs, according to Promiſe. But Infants, as ſuch, who are baptized, were not baptized upon the Profeſſion of their Faith, nor did they put on Chriſt thereby, p. 6nor are they all one in Chriſt Jeſus, alſo are not Abraham's Seed and Heirs according to Promiſe. Ergo, Infants ought not to be baptized.

Mr. Baxter confirms the Subſtance of the Major. Theſe are his very Words, i. e. As many as have been baptized have put on Chriſt, and are all one in Chriſt Jeſus; and are Abraham's Seed, and Heirs, according to the Promiſe, Gal. 3. 27, 28, 29. This ſpeaks the Apoſtle, ſaith he, of the Probability grounded on a credible Profeſſion, &c. Baxter's Co…firm. Reconcil. pag. 32.

The Minor will ſtand firm till any can prove Infants by a viſible Profeſſion have put on Chriſt, are all one in Chriſt Jeſus, are Abraham's Seed and Heirs according to Promiſe. Evident it is, none are the ſpiritual Seed of Abraham, but ſuch who have the Faith of Abraham, but ſuch who have the Faith of Abraham, and are truly grafred into Chriſt, by a Saving-Faith. If any object, We read of ſome who were baptized, who had no Saving-Faith, but were Hypocrites. I anſwer; Had they appeared to be ſuch, they had not been baptized, nor had they a true Right thereto.

Arg. 20. Baptiſm is the ſolemnizing of the Souls Marriage-Union with Chriſt, which Marriage-Contract abſolutely requires an actual Profeſſion of conſent. Infants are not capable to enter into a Marriage-Union with Chriſt, nor to make a Profeſſion of Conſent. Ergo, Infants ought not to be baptized.

The Major our Oppoſits generally grant, particularly ſee what Mr. Baxter ſaith, Our Baptiſm is the ſolemnizing of our Marriage with Chriſt. Theſe are his Words, p. 32.

The Minor none can deny: No Man ſure in his right Mind, will aſſert that little Babes are capable to enter into a Marriage-Relation with Chriſt, and to make a Profeſſion of a Conſent: And the Truth is, he in the next Words gives away his Cauſe, viz. And 'tis, ſaith he, a new and ſtrange kind of Marriage, where there is no Profeſſion of Conſent; p. 32. How unhappy was this Man to plead for ſuch a new and ſtrange kind of Marriage: Did he find any little Babe he ever baptized (or rather rantized) to make a Profeſſion of Conſent to be married to Jeſus Chriſt. If any ſhould object, he ſpeaks of the Baptiſm of the Adult. I anſwer, his Words are theſe, Our Baptiſm is, &c. Beſides, will any Pedo-Baptiſt ſay, that the Baptiſm of the Adult is the ſolemnizing of the Souls Marriage with Chriſt, and not the Baptiſm of Infants. Reader, obſerve how our Oppoſits are forced ſometimes to ſpeak the Truth, though it overthrows their own Practice of Pedo-Baptiſm.

Arg. 21. If the Sins of no Perſons are forgiven them till they are converted, then they muſt not be baptized for the Forgiveneſs of them, till they proſeſs themſelves to be converted; but the Sins of no Perſons are forgiven them till they are converted. Ergo, No Perſon ought to be baptized for the Forgiveneſs of them, till they profeſs they are converted.

Mr. Baxter in the ſaid Treatiſe lays down the Subſtance of this Argument alſo, take his own Words, i. e. As their Sins are not forgiven them till they are converted, Mark 4. 12. ſo they muſt not be baptized for the Forgiveneſs of them, till they profeſs themſelves converted, ſeeing to the Church, in eſſe, and non apparere is all one. Repentance towards God, and Faith towards our Lord Jeſus is the Sum of that Preaching that makes Diſciples, Acts 20. 21. Therefore, ſaith he, both theſe muſt by a Profeſſion ſeem to be received, before any at Age are baptized; p. 30. 31. And evident it is, ſay I, from hence none but ſuch at Age ought to be baptized. Philip cauſed the Eunuch to profeſs before he would baptize him, that be believed that Jeſus Chriſt is the Son of God. Saul had alſo, ſaith he, more than a bare Profeſſion before Baptiſm, Acts 9. 5, 15, 17. p. 28. The Promiſe it ſelf, ſaith he doth expreſly require a Faith of our own, of all the Adult that will have part in the Priviledges: therefore there is a Faith of our own, that is the Condition of our Title; Mark 16. 16. p. 16.

He might have added by the Force of his Argument; therefore Infants ſhould not have the Priviledges: for I argue thus, viz.

Arg. 22. If there is but one Baptiſm of Water left by Jeſus Chriſt in the New Teſtament, p. 7and but one Condition or Manner of Right thereto: and that one Baptiſm is that of the Adult; then Infant-Baptiſm is no Baptiſm of Chriſt. But there is but one Baptiſm in Water leſt by Chriſt in the New Teſtament, and but one Condition and Manner of Right thereto, and that one Baptiſm is that of the Adult. Ergo, Infant-Baptiſm is no Baptiſm of Chriſt.

Mr. Baxter ſaith, Faith and Repentance is the Condition of the Adult, and as to any other Condition, I am ſure the Scripture is ſilent; the Way of the Lord is one, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptiſm, Epheſ. 4. 4.

If Profeſſion of Faith were not neceſſary, ſaith Mr. Baxter, coram Eccleſiâ, to Church-Memberſhip and Priviledges, then Infidels and Heathens would have Right; alſo, ſaith he, the Church and the World would be confounded. He might have added, but Infidels and Heathens have no Right to Church-Memberſhip, &c. Ergo, 'Tis a granted Caſe among all Chriſtians, ſaith he, that Profeſſion is thus neceſſary, the Apoſtles and Ancient Church admitted none without it; pag. 21. And if ſo, why dare any now adays admit of Infants, who are capable to make no Profeſſion. He adds, Yea Chriſt in his Commiſſion directeth his Apoſtles to make Diſciples, and then baptize them, promiſing, He that believeth, and is baptized, ſhall be ſaved, Mark 16. 16. pag. 27. Furthermore he ſaith, If as many as are baptized into Chriſt, are baptized into his Death, and are buried with him by Baptiſm into Death, that like as Chriſt was raiſed from the Dead, ſo we alſo ſhould-walk in Newneſs of Life, &c. Then no doubt, ſaith he, but ſuch as were to be baptized, did firſt profeſs this Mortification, and a Conſent to be buried, &c. In our Baptiſm we put off the Body of the the Sins of the Fleſh, by the Circumciſion of Chriſt, being buried with him, and raiſed with him through Faith, quickned with him, and having all our Treſpaſſes forgiven, Col. 2. 11, 12, 13. And will any Mau (ſays he) yea, will Paul aſcribe all this to thoſe that did not ſo much as profeſs the things ſignified? Will Baptiſm, in the Judgment of a wiſe Man, do all this for an Infidel, (or, ſay I, for an Infant) that cannot make a Profeſſion that he is a Chriſtian? pag. 31, 32. He proceeds.

Arg. 23. the Baptized are in Scripture called Men waſhed, ſanctified, juſtified; they are called Saints, and Churches of Saints, 1 Cor. 1. 2. all Chriſtians are ſanctified ones: pag. 33. Now let me add the Minor.

But Infants baptized are not in Scripture called Men waſhed, ſanctified, juſtified, they are not called Saints, Churches of Saints, Chriſtians, nor ſanctified ones. Ergo, Infants ought not to be baptized. If any ſhould ſay, Why did you not cite theſe Aſſertions of Mr. Baxter's whilſt he was living? I anſwer, More then twelve Years ago I did recite and print theſe Aſſertions, and many other Arguments of his to the ſame Purpoſe, to which he gave no Anſwer.

Arg. 24. If there is but one way for all, both Parents and Children to be admitted into the Goſpel-Church to the End of the World, and that it is upon the Profeſſion of Faith to be baptized; then both Parents and Children muſt upon the Profeſſion of their Faith be baptized, and ſo admitted, &c. But there is but one way for all, both Parents and Children, to be admitted into the Goſpel-Church to the End of the World, and that is upon the Profeſſion their Faith to be baptized. Ergo.

Arg. 25. That cannot be Chriſt's true Baptiſm wherein there is not, cannot be a lively Repreſentation of the Death, Burial and Reſurrection of Jeſus Chriſt, together with our Death unto Sin, and Vivification to a new Life. But in the Rantizing or Sprinkling of an Infant, there is not, cannot be a lively Repreſentation of Chriſt's Death, Burial and Reſurrection, &c. Ergo.

Arg. 26. That pretended Baptiſm that tends to fruſtrate the glorious End and Deſign of Chriſt in his inſtituting of Goſpe-Baptiſm, or cannot anſwer it, is none of Chriſt's Baptiſm. But the pretended Baptiſm of Infants tends to fruſtrate the glorious end and deſign of Chriſt in inſtituting of Goſpel-Baptiſm, Ergo.

That Major will not he denied.

As to the Minor, all generally confeſ the End or Deſign of Chriſt in inſtituting the Ordinance of Baptiſm, was in a lively Figure, to repreſent his Death, Burial, and Reſurrection, with the Perſon's Death unto p. 8Sin, and his riſing again to walk in newneſs of Life, that is baptized, as the Sacrament of the Supper was ordained to repreſent his Body was broke, and his Blood was ſhed. But that a lively Figure of Chriſt's Death, Burial, and Reſurrection, appears in ſprinkling a little Water on the Face, I ſee not; and as done to an Infant, there can no Death to Sin, and riſing again to walk in newneſs of Life, be ſignified; And therefore Chriſt's Deſign and End therein is fruſtrated.

Arg. 27. If Baptiſm be Immerſion, as to the proper and genuine ſignification of the word Baptizo, as alſo of thoſe Typical and Metaphorical Baptiſms and the ſpiritual Signification thereof; then Sprinkling cannot be Chriſt's true Baptiſm. But Immerſion is the proper and genuine ſignification of the word Baptizo, and alſo of thoſe Typical and Metaphorical Baptiſms ſpoken of, and the ſpiritual Signification thereof. Ergo, Sprinkling is not Chriſt's true Baptiſm.

1. That the proper and genuine Signification of the word Baptizo is Immerſion, or to dip, &c. we have proved, which is alſo confeſſed by the Learned in the Language.

2. The Figurative Baptiſm was, 1ſt. That of the Red Sea, wherein the …thers were buried, as it were, unto Moſes in the Sea, and under the Cloud. Pools Annotations on 1 Cor. 10. 2. Others, ſaith he, more probably think that the Apoſtle uſeth this term, in regard of the great Analogy betwixt Baptiſm (as it was then uſed) the Perſons going down into the Waters, and being dipped in them; and the Iſraelites going down into the Sea, the great Receptacle of Water, though the Water at that time was gathered on Heaps on either ſide of them; yet they ſeemed-buried in the Water, as Perſons in that Age were when they were baptized, &c. The 2d. was that of Noah's Ark. See Sir Norton Knatchb…ll: The Ark of Noah and Baptiſm, ſaith he, were both a Type and Figure of the Reſurrection, not the Sign of the waſhing away of Sin, though ſo taken metonymically, but a particular Signal of the Reſurrection of Chriſt: of this Baptiſm is a lively and emphatical Figure, as Alſo was the Ark of Noah, out of which he returned as from a Sepulchre, to a new Life.

3. Metaphorical Baptiſm is that of the Spirit and of Affliction: the firſt ſignifies not a ſprinkling of the Spirit, but the great Effuſion of the Spirit, like that at Pentecoſt, Acts 1. 4, 5. Shall be baptized, &c. on which Words Caſaubon ſpeaks thus: See Dr. D… Veil on Acts 2. The Greek Word foreign is to dip or plunge, as it were to die Colours, in which Senſe, ſaith he, the Apoſtles might be truly ſaid to have been baptized for the Houſe in which this was done, was filled with the Holy Ghoſt; ſo that the Apoſtles might ſeem to have been plunged into it as in a large Fiſh-Pond. Alſo … on Acts 2. ſaith, A Wind filled the whole Houſe, that it ſeemed like a Fish-Pond, becauſe it was promiſed to the Apoſtles, that they ſhould be baptized with the Holy Ghoſt. And the Baptiſm of Afflic… are thoſe great depths or overwhelming of Afflictions, like that of our Saviour's …, i. e. no part free; Matth. 20. 22. … you have the ſame Greed Word foreign and like that, of David, who ſaith, … him out of gr…t Waters.

4. The ſpiritual Signification thereof … the Death, Burial and Reſurrection of Christ and of our Death to Sin, and Vivification … a new Life.

This being ſo, it follows … Sprinkling cannot be Chriſt… true … it muſt be Immerſion, and nothing elſe.

And in the laſt Place, Finally, To … that Baptizo is to dip, both from the literal … ſpiritual Signification thereof, as alſo … thoſe typical and metaphorical Baptiſm … tioned in the Scripture, I might add … that this evidently appears from the … of John Baptiſt and the Apoſtles of … who baptized in Rivers, and where … much Water: and alſo, becauſe the … Baptized are ſaid to go down into the W… (not down to the Water) and came … of the Water. John Baptiſt is ſaid to … them into Jordan, as the Greek Word … it, which ſhews it dipping and not …. Would it be proper to ſay, He … them into Jordan? The Lord open … thoſe who ſee not, to conſider theſe …

FINIS.

End of the text · Benjamin Keach, An Appendix to the Answer Concerning Paedobaptism (1692)