Pedo-baptism disproved being an answer to two printed papers (put forth by some gentlemen called the Athenian Society, who pretend to answer all questions sent to them of what nature soever) called the Athenian Mercury, one put forth November 14, the other November 28, 1691 : in which papers they pretend to answer eight queries about the lawfulness of infant-baptism : likewise divers queries sent to them about the true subjects of baptism, &c.

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

Gentlemen,

SInce you desire Syllogisms, I have grati∣fied 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 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 made Disciples by Teaching▪ Er∣go, Little Babes ought not to be baptized.

Arg. 2. If Infant-Baptism was never insti∣tuted; commanded, or appointed of God, Infants ought not to be baptized. But In∣fant-Baptism was never instituted, command∣ed, or appointed of God. Ergo, They ought not to be baptized.

As to the Major; If one thing ma•••••• pra∣ctised 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 some∣where 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies.

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

Arg. 3. If all Nations, or any in the Na∣tions 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, Pa∣gans and Unbelievers, and their Children, ought not to be baptized. Ergo.

Besides that, Teaching (by the Authori∣ty of the Commission) must go before Bap∣tizing, we have proved; which generally all Learned Men do assert: if the Institution is to b•• ••ound 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 Chap∣ters; 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 dange∣rous 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 glorifi∣ed 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 Com∣mandments 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 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 Regenera∣tion, but only metonymically, it being a Fi∣gure 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 Wa∣ter is applied to the Body: If it were so, then all that were baptized were regene∣rated, 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 Bap∣tism upon the Elect, and exerts it self after∣wards in Conversion. But how so active a Principle as a spiritual Life should lie dead and asleep so many Years, &c. is not easi∣ly 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 per∣form 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 Bap∣tism is not required of God, and the Sure∣ties 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 Chil∣drens / Baptism is not required of God, and they do not, cannot perform what they pro∣mise. Ergo.

Do they, or can they cause the Child to for∣sake 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 re∣quired 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 bapti∣zed Children.

Union of the Church, and on Rom. 6.

Calvin saith,

It is no where expressed by the Evangelists, that any one 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 Magd••burgenses 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 meet with no Example in Scripture.

Magdeb. Cent. l. 2. p. 469.

Dr. Taylor saith,

It is against the perpe∣tual Analogy of Christ's Doctrine to baptize Infants: For besides that Christ never gave any Precept to baptize them, nor eyer him∣self

nor 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 Scrip∣ture, 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 Scrip∣tures, &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 Fa∣thers and Modern Divines.

Athanasius saith,

The Holy Scriptures be∣ing 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 Argu∣ment 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, left a Man would know more than the Scriptures witness.

Aug. in his 198 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.

Isychi••••s 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. c. 16. on Levi••.

Bellarmin saith,

That though the Argu∣ments of the Anabaptists, from the defect of Command or Example, have a great Use against the Lutherans, forasmuch as they use that ••i•••• every where, having no Com∣mand 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 Apo∣stolical Tradition.

Bellarm. in his Book d•• Bapt. I. 1. c. 8.

Mr. Ball saith,

We must for every Ordi∣nance look to the Institution, and never stretch it wider, nor draw it narrower than the Lord hath made it, for he is the Insti∣tutor 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 ••••e Letter of the Scripture. And as to the Consequences drawn therefrom, we have proved, they are not natural from the Pre∣mises; and though we admit of Conse∣quences and Inferences if genuine, yet not in the case of an Institution respecting a pra∣ctical 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 Bap∣tism. 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 Pe∣do-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 Belie∣vers. Others say, Infants have Faith, and therefore have a Right. Others say, They

have a Right by the Faith of their Sureties. Some ground their Right from an Apostoli∣cal Tradition; others upon the Authority of Scripture. Some say, All Children of pro∣fessed Christians ought to be baptized; others say, None but the Children of true Believers have a Right to it. Sure, if it was an Ordi∣nance of Christ, his Word would soon end this Controversy.

Arg. 10. If the Children of believing Gen∣tiles, as such, are not the natural nor spiritu∣al Seed of Abraham, they can have no Right to Baptism, or Church-Membership, by vir∣tue 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 Scrip∣ture, that any spiritual Benefit redounds to Infants in their Baptism, 'tis no Ordinance of Christ. But no Man can prove from Scrip∣ture, 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 Pro∣mise to such who do it, nor Threatnings to such who neglect it. But there is no Com∣mand or Example in all the Word of God for the baptizing of little Babes, nor Promise made to such who are baptized, nor Threat∣nings to such who are not. Ergo.

That the Child lies under a Promise who is baptized, or the Child under any Threat∣ning 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 Chil∣dren, &c. Ergo, Infant-Baptism is no Ordi∣nance 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 dimi∣nish therefrom, and God is as strict and jea∣lous of his Worship under the Gospel; then nothing ought to be altered in God's Wor∣ship 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 Abibu 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 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 infinitum.

Arg. 16. Whatsoever Practice reflects upon the Honour, Wisdom and Care of Jesus Christ, or renders him less faithful than Mo∣ses, 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, can∣not 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-Bap∣tism cannot be of God.

The 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 •••• 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 Demonstra∣tion, and so prove nothing. I am sure a Man may read the Scripture a hundred times o∣ver, and never be thereby convinced; he ought to baptize his Children, tho it is pow∣erful 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 Pre∣cepts, 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 confound∣ed 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 Nor∣ton Knatchbul shews,

That the Jewish Rab∣bins differed among themselves also about it: for, saith he, Rabbi Eli••zer expresly contradicts Rabbi Josh••a, who was the first I know of who asserted this sort of Bap∣tism among the Jews: For Eli••zer, who was contemporary with Rabbi Josh••a, if he did not live before him, asserts, that a Proselyte circumcised and not baptized, was a true Proselyte.

Arg. 18. If Baptism •••• of mere positive Right, wholly depending on the Will and So∣vereign Pleasure of Jesus Christ, the great Legislator: And he hath not required or commanded Infants to be baptized: then In∣fants 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 bap∣tized. Ergo, Infants ought not to be bap∣tized.

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 Com∣mandment from God to circumcise them. Had he done it before, or without a Com∣mand from God, it would have been Will-Worship in him so to have done. More∣over, this further appears to be so, Because no godly Man's Children, no•• others in Abra∣ham's Days, nor since, had any Right there∣to, 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 o•• Authority from Christ, it will be found an Act of Will-Worship in them.

Arg. 19. All that were baptized in the A∣postolical Primitive Times, were baptized up∣on the Profession of Faith, were baptized into Christ, and thereby put on Christ, and were all one in Christ Jesus, and were Abra∣ham'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 out on Christ thereby,

nor are they all one in Christ Jesus, also are not Abraham's Seed and Hoirs according to Promise. Ergo, Infants ought not to be bap∣tized.

Mr. Baxter confirms the Substance of the Major. These are his very Words, i. ••. 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 credi∣ble Profession, &c.

Baxter's Confirm▪ Re∣concil. 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 Abra∣ham's Seed and Heirs according to Promise. Evident it is, none are the spiritual Seed of Abraham, but such who have the Faith of A∣braham, 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 an∣swer; Had they appeared to be such, they had not been baptized, not 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 ••aith,

Our Baptism is the solemnizing of our Marri∣age 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 Marri∣age, where there is no Profession of Con∣sent;

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 Professioo 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. Be∣sides, 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 for∣given them till they are converted, then they must no•• be baptized for the Forgiveness of them, till they profess themselves to be con∣verted; but the Sins of no Persons are for∣given them till they are converted. Ergo, No Person ought to be baptized for the For∣giveness 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 them∣selves 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 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 he 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 Pri∣viledges: 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 Testa∣ment,

and but one Condition or Manner of Right thereto: and that one Baptism is that of the Adult; then Infant-Baptism is no Bap∣tism of Christ. But there is but one Baptism in Water left by Christ in the New Testa∣ment, and but one Condition and Manner of ••••ght 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 o∣ther Condition, I am sure the Scripture is si∣lent; 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 grant∣ed Case among all Christians, saith he, that Profession is thus necessary, the Apostles and Ancient Church admitted none with∣out it;

pag. 21. And if so, why dare any now adays admit of Infants, who are capa∣ble to make no Professior. He adds,

Yea Christ in his Commission directeth his Apo∣stles to make Disciples, and the ••••baptize them, promising, He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved, Mark 16. 16.

pag. 27. Furthermore he ••aith,

If as many as are bap∣tized 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 f••••t profess this Morti∣fication, 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, bring buried with him, and raised with him through Faith, quickned with him, and having all our Trespasses forgive••, Col. 2. 〈◊〉〈◊〉, 12, ••3. And will any Man (says he) yea, will Paul ascribe all this to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that did no•• so much as profess the thing•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉? 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; ••••••y 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 call∣ed 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. Ba••∣ter'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 in∣to 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 of their Faith to be bap∣tized. 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 un••o Sin, and Vi••ification to a new Life. But in the R••••••••ing 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 ••ru••trate the glorious ••••d and De∣sign of Christ in his instituting of Gospel-Baptism, or cannot answer it, i•• none of Cl••••st'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 con•••••••• the End or Design of Christ in instituting the Ordinance of Baptism, was in a lively Fi∣gure, to represent his Death, Burial, and Resurrection, with the Person's Death unto

Sin, and his rising again to walk in newness of ••ife, 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 Sig∣nification 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 Significa∣tion of the word Baptizo is Immersion, or to dip, &c. we have proved, which is also con∣fessed by the Learned in that Language.

2. The Figurative Baptism was, 1s••. That of the Red Sea, wherein the Fathers were bu∣ried, as it were, unto Moses in the Sea, and under the Cloud. Fools Annotations on 1 Cor. 1••. 2.

Others, saith ••e, 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 Rec••p••acle of Water, though 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Water at that time was gather∣ed on ••••aps on either side of them▪ yet they see••••ed buried in the Water, as Per∣sons in that Age were when they were bap∣tized, 〈◊〉〈◊〉.

The ••d. was that of Noah's Ark. S••e 〈…〉〈…〉 K••a••e••bull:

The Ark of Noah and Baptism, saith he, were both a Type and Figure of the Resurrection, no•• the Sign of the washing away of Sin, though so taken metonymically, but a particular ••••g∣nal 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 〈◊〉〈◊〉

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 Pen∣tecost, Acts 1. 4, 5. Shall be baptized, &c. on which Words Casaubon speaks thus: See Dr. D••∣V••il on Acts. 2.

The Greek Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is to dip or plunge, as it were to die Co∣lours, 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 A∣postles might seem to have been plunged in∣to it as in a large Fish-Pond.

Also Oecume∣nius on Acts 2. saith,

A Wind filled the whole House, that it seemed like a Fish-Pond, because it was promised to the Apo∣stles, that they should be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

And the Baptism of Affliction are those great depths or overwhelmings of Afflictions, like that of our Saviour's suffer∣ing, i. e. no part free; Matth. 20. 22. where you have the same Greed Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and like that of David, who saith, God drew him out of great 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 ••ife.

This being so, it follows undeniably Sprinkling cannot be Christ's true Baptism, it must be Immersion, and nothing else.

And in the last Place, Finally, To confirm that Baptizo is to dip, both from the literal and spiritual Signification thereof, as also from those typical and metaphorical Baptisms men∣tioned in the Scripture, I might add further, that this evidentl•• appears from the Practice of John Baptist 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 Jordan, as the Greek Word ren∣ders it, which shews it dipping and not sprink∣ling. 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.

FINIS.