Light Broke Forth in Wales Expelling Darkness, Chapter 26
CHAP. XXVI.
Containing Divers Arguments to diſprove Pedo-Baptiſm, and to prove the Baptiſm of Believers, which Mr. Owen is deſir'd to Anſwer when he writes again.
Arg. 1. IF none are to be Baptized by the Authority of the Great Commiſſion of our bleſſed Saviour, Mat. 28. but ſuch who are firſt Taught or made Diſciples by Teaching, then Infants 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 Taught or made Diſciples by Teaching. Ergo, Infants 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; and 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, Mat. 28. Mark 16. or ſomewhere elſe. But 'tis not contained in the great Commiſſion, nor any where elſe, Ergo, &c.
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 ought 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, &c.
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; but 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 its alſo aſſerted by the Church of Ergland. 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 denyed.
Arg. 5. That practice that tends not to the Glory of God, nor the profit of the Child, when done, nor in aftertimes 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 … profit of the Child, when Baptized, nor in aftertimes when grown up, but may be 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 the Lord Commanded them not, That God would be Sanctified by all that drew near unto him; intimating that ſuch who did that which God Commanded them not, did not Sanctifie or Glorifie God therein. Can God be glorified by Man's Diſobedience, or by adding to his Word; by doing that which God hath not required? Mat. 16. 9. In vain do you Worſhip me, Teaching for Doctrine the Commandments of Men. And that that practice doth 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 the Athenian Society in their Mercury, December 26. plainly intimate, and that Infants are thereby ingrafted alſo into Chriſts Church. Sure all underſtanding Men know the 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 Parents Faith, or by the Childs Covenant in Baptiſm, which may prove hurtful & 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 applyed to the Body. If it were ſo, then all that were baptized ſhould be ſaved, or elſe the Doctrine of Perſeverance falls to the Ground. Some indeed (ſays he) ſay, that Regeneration is conferred in Baptiſm upon the Elect, and exerts its ſelf afterwards in Converſion. But how ſo active a Principle as Spiritual Life, ſhould lye dead and a ſleep ſo many years, &c. is not eaſily conceived. On Regen. page 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, ſpeaks 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.
Obj. If it be objected, That they affirm they do perform by their Sureties.
Ans. If Suretiſhip for Children in Baptiſm is not required of God, and the Sureties do not, yea cannot perform thoſe things for the Child, then Suretyſhip 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, &c.
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 preſident in the Scripture, (as there is no precept) that any Infant was baptized, then Infants ought not to be baptized; But there is no preſident 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. Union of the Church, and on Rom. 6.
Calvin ſaith, 'tis no where expreſſed by the Evangeliſts; that any one Infant was baptized by the Apoſtles. Inſtit. cap. 16. lib. 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 Lud.
The Magdeburgenſes ſay, That concerning the bap…ing the Adult, both Jews and Gentiles, we have ſufficient proof, Acts. 2. 8, 10. 16. Chap. but as to the baptizing of Infants, they can meet with no example in Scripture. Magdeb. Cant. l. 2. page. 469.
Dr. Taylor ſaith, It is againſt the perpetual Analogie of Chriſts Doctrine to baptize Infants: For beſides that Chriſt never gave any precept to baptize them, nor ever himſelf nor his Apoſtles (that appears) did baptize any of them; ſo 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. page 239.
Arg. 8. If whatſoever 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 found 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.
Athanaſins ſaith, The Holy Scriptures being Inſpirations of God, are ſufficient to all Inſtructions of Truth. Athan. againſt the Gentiles.
Cryſoſtom 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.
Auguſtin ſaith, In the Scriptures are found all things which contain Faith, manner of Living, Hope, Love, &c. Let us, (ſaith he) ſeek no farther then what is written of God our Saviour, l…ſt a Man would know more that the Scriptures witneſs. Auguſtin in his 198 Epiſtles to Fortunatus.
Theophilact ſaith, It is part of a Diabolical Spirit to think any thing Divine without the Authority of the Holy Scripture. Lib. 2. paſch.
Iſychius ſaith, Let us who will have any thing obſerved of God, ſearch no more but that which the Goſpel doth give unto us. Lib. 5. cap. 16. on Levit.
Bellarmin ſaith, That though the Arguments of the Anabaptiſts, from the defect of Command or Example, have a great uſe againſt the Lutherans, for as much as they uſe that Rite every where, and having no Command or Example; theirs is to be rejected; yet is it of no force againſt Catholicks, who conclude that an Apoſtolical Tradition is of no leſs authority with us than the Scripture, &c. This of baptizing of Infants is an Apoſtolical Tradition. Bell. Lib. de Bapt. 1. cap. 8.
Mr. Ball ſaith, We muſt for every Ordinance look for 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 of the New-England Elders page 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 tho' we will 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 and ground of Pedo-baptiſm, or for what reaſon they ought to be baptized, Ergo, It is no Inſtitution of Chriſt.
The Minor is undeniable; ſome affirm as we have already ſhew'd, that it was to take away Original Sin; others ſay it is, theirs right by the Covenant, they being the Seed of Believers; others ſay, Infants have Faith, and therefore have a Right; others ſay, they have a Right by the Faith of their Surety. Some ground their Right from 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 Controverſie.
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 Parents, 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 threatning 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 who is not Baptized, let them prove it, ſince it is denyed.
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 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, nor reprov'd for neglecting to baptize them &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 denyed.
The Minor is clear from Exod. 25. 40. See thou make all things according to the Pattern ſhewed thee in the Mount. and Lev. 10. 1, 2. See how Nadab and Abihu, ſped for preſuming to vary from the Command of God, and Uzzah, 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 Human Traditions in God's Worſhip, is a great Evil, and to be avoided; But the practice of Infant Baptiſm opens a Door to any Human Traditions in God's Worſhip, Ergo, to Sprinkle or Baptize Infants is a great Evil, and ought to be avoided.
The Major will not be denied.
The Minor is clear, becauſe there is no Scripture ground for it, no Command or 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 infinitum.
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.
The Major cannot be denyed.
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, its not to be found in the Scripture at all, but 'tis an unwritten Apoſtolical Tradition: Others ſay, it lies not 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 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, though it is powerful to convince Men of all Chriſtian Duties.
Now can this be a Truth, ſince Chriſt was more Faithful than Moſes; and delivered every thing plainly from the Father? Moſes left nothing dark as to matters of Duty, tho' the Precept and Eternal Rites of his Law were numerous, even 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 Grounds 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, or 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, or of Divine Authority; and evident it is, according to that Forementioned and Worthy Author Sir. Norton Knatchbal, that the Jewiſh Rabbins differed among themſelves about it; for, ſaith he, to Cite his very words again, Rabbi Eleaezer expreſly contradicts Rabbi Joſhua, who was the firſt I know of, who aſſerted this ſort of Baptiſm among the Jews; for Eleazer, 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 Meer poſitive Right, wholly depending on the Will and Sovereign Pleaſure of Jeſus Chriſt, the great Legiſlator, and he hath not Requi red or Commanded Infants to be baptized; then Infants ought not to be baptized; but Baptiſm is of meer 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 Loyns, till he received Commandment from God to Circumciſe them. Had he done it before, or without Command from God, it would have been Will-worſhip in him to have done it; Moreover, this further appear… to be ſo, becauſe no godly Mans 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 Willworſhip in them.
Arg. 19. All that were baptized in the Apoſtolical Primitive times, were baptized upon the profeſſion of their 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 the promiſe. But Infants, as ſuch, who are baptized, were not baptized upon the profeſſion of their Faith, nor did they put on Chriſt thereby, nor are they all one in Chriſt Jeſus, and alſo are not Abrahams Seed and Heirs, according to Promiſe. Ergo, Infants ought not to be baptized.
Mr. Baxter confirms the ſubſtance of the Major, theſe are his words, i. e. As many as have been baptized have put on Chriſt, and are all one in Chriſt Jeſus, and are Abrahams 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. Baxters Confirm Reconcil. page 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 Abrahams Seed and Heirs according to the promiſe. Evident it is, none are the ſpiritual Seed of Abraham, but ſuch who have the Faith of Abraham, and are truly grafted 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; but Infants are not capable to enter into Marriage Union with Chriſt, nor to make a profeſſion of an actual conſent. Ergo, Infants ought not to be baptized.
The Major our oppoſites generally grant, particularly ſee what Mr. Baxter ſaith, Our Baptiſm is our ſolemnizing of our Marriage with Chriſt. Theſe are his very words. page 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 profeſſion of a conſent; and the truth is, he in the next words gives away his Cauſe, viz. and 'tis (ſaith he) A a new and ſtrange kind of Marriage where there is no profeſſion of conſent. page 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 oppoſites are forced ſometimes to ſpeak the Truth, tho' 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 profess themſelves to be Converted; but the Sins of no Perſons till they are Converted are forgiven; 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 non 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 thoſe muſt by a Profeſſion ſeem to be received, before any at Age are baptized. page 30, 31. and evident it is, ſay I, from hence that none but ſuch at Age ought to be baptized.
Philip cauſed the Eunuch to profeſs before he would Baptize him, That he believed that Jeſus Chriſt was the Son of God. Saul had alſo, ſaith he, more than a bare profeſſion before Baptiſm, Acts 9. 5, 15, 17. page 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. page 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 Jeruſalem, or 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 left 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, Eph. 4. 4.
If profeſſion of Faith were not neceſſary, ſaith Mr. Baxter, Coram Eccleſia, 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 Antient Church admitted none without it. page 21. And if ſo, why dare any now a days admit of Infants, who are uncapable to make 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. page 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 Sins of the Fleſh, by the Circumciſion of Chriſt, being buried with him and raiſed with him through Faith, quickened with him, and haveing all our Treſpaſſes forgiven, Coll. 2. 11, 12, 13. and will any Man, 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. page 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, page 33. now let me add the Minor.
But Infants 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. Baxters whilſt he was living? I anſwer, more then Eighteen 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 in the Goſpel Church, to the end of the World, and that it is upon 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 of 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.
Arg. 26. That pretended Baptiſm that pretends to fruſtrate the glorious end and deſign of Chriſt in his Inſtituting of Goſpel 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.
The Major will not be denied.
As to the Minor, all generally confeſs the end and deſign of Chriſt in Inſtituting the Ordinance of Baptiſm, was in a lively Figure to repreſent his Death, Burial and Reſurrecton; with the Perſons Death unto Sin, 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 Chriſts 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 Chriſts 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 Chriſts 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 fully proved, which is alſo confeſſed by all Learned in that Language.
2. That the Typical Baptiſm, viz. that of the Red Sea, wherein the Fathers were buried, as it were unto Moſes in the Sea, and under the Cloud, appears from Pools Annotations. 1 Cor. 10. 2.
Others, (ſaith he) more probably think that the Apoſtle uſeth this Term, in regard of the great Analogy betwix… Baptiſm (as it was then uſed) the Perſons going down into the Waters, and being Dipp…d; and the Iſraelites going down into the Sea, the great receptacle of water, tho' 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 ſecond was that of Noahs Ark; See Sir Norton Knatchbul, who I before Quoted, and ſhall here again recite his words.
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, tho' 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 Causabon ſpeaks thus: See Dr. Du Veil on Acts 2. The Greek word foreign is to Dip or Plung…, as it were to die Colours, in which ſenſe, (ſaith he) the 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 into a large Fiſh-Pond. Alſo Decumentus on Acts 2. ſaith, A wind filled the whole Houſe, that it seemed like a …i…h-Pond, becauſe it was promiſed to the Apoſtles, that they ſhould be baptized with the Holy Ghoſt. And the Baptiſm of afflictions are thoſe great depths or overwhelmings of afflictions, like that of our Saviours (magnis componere parva) no part free, Mat. 20. 22. where you have the ſame word foreign, and like that of David, who ſaith, God drew him out of deep waters.
4. The ſpiritual ſignification thereof is the Death, Burial and Reſurrection of Chriſt, and of our Death to ſin, and vivification to a New Life.
This being ſo, it follows undeniably that Sprinkling cannot be Chriſts true baptiſm; it muſt be Immerſion and nothing elſe.
And in the laſt place, finally, to confirm that foreign is to Dip, both from the …teral and ſpiritual ſignification thereof, as alſo from thoſe Typical and Metaphorical Baptiſms mentioned in the Scripture. I might add further that this evidently appears from the practice of John Baptis…, and the Apoſtles of Chriſt, who baptized in Rivers, and where there was much water; and alſo becauſe the Baptizer and Baptized, are ſaid to go down into the water (not down to the water) and came up out of the water. John Baptiſt is ſaid to baptize them into (foreign) …ordan as the Greek renders it, which ſhews it Dipping and not Sprinkling. Would it be proper to ſay, he Sprinkled them into Jordan. The Lord open the Eyes of thoſe who ſee not, to conſider theſe things.
Sir, I expect your anſwer to theſe Arguments particularly if you make any reply to what I have ſaid in confutation of your Treatiſe, and ſee you do your buſineſs better the next time, for as yet you have not proved Infant Baptiſm to be, from Heaven, as I hope the unprejudiced Reader will conclude: I ſhall ſay no more at preſent; but leave all I have ſaid to the bleſſing of God, hoping in a little time he will vanquiſh by the light of his ſacred word, your Scripture leſs practice of Infant Baptiſm out of the World clear up the Truth of his own deſpiſed Ordinance, That Wiſdom may … of her Children, and God may be Honoured, to whom be Glory now and for ever more.
Amen.
FINIS.
End of the text · Benjamin Keach, Light Broke Forth in Wales Expelling Darkness (1696)