and are baptized with the Spirit left they are found Liars and to be indeed without any Baptism at all for though the Saints before that great Effusion of the Spirit nay before Christ was manifested in the Flesh had the Holy Spirit and some of them in a glorious manner yet as some learned Men observe they were not said to be baptized with it so likewise Believers in these days have the Spirit of Christ in the ordinary Gifts and Graces thereof yea and the Promise of Christ is that the Blessed Spirit the Comforter shall abide with us for ever yet are not we nor any now baptized with it nor have any as I humbly conceive since those miraculous and extraordinary Gifts ceased in the Church Thirdly There is another Typical or Metaphorical Baptism spoken of viz. the Children of Israel or the Fathers are said to be baptized to Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea 1 Cor. 10. Some have of late intimated That the Rain that fell from the Cloud sprinkled them as they past through the Sea and from hence would have Baptism to be Sprinkling Truly if that was a Baptism viz. it raining upon them the People may save their Mony and never go to Priest â—or Minister more to Christen their Children for 't is but to carry them abroad when it rains and they will be so baptized and it will be as true a Baptism no doubt for the using the Name of the Father c. doth not make Baptism though true Baptism cann't be warrantably administred without mentioning the Names of the Sacred Trinity But we must conclude there was something else than that which these Men suppose in that Case which caused the Apostle to say Our Fathers were baptized unto Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea. It was doubtless a Type and plain Figure of Gospel-dipping or burying in Water for they were overwhelmed 't is evident as it were in the Cloud and in the Sea. And we must give our late Annotators their due at this turn also for they speak much the sense of the Spirit of God in that place pray take their own words after they have given the sense of divers Learned Men upon the Text this they fix upon us to be most probably the meaning of the Scripture Others say they most probably think that the Apostle maketh use of this term in regard of the great Analogy betwixt Baptism as it was then used the Persons going down into the Waters being dipped in them and the Israelites going down into the Sea the great Receptacle of Water though the Waters at that time were gathered on heaps on either side of them yet they seemed buried in the Waters as Persons in that Age were when they were baptized A very plain Figure doubtless they having the Water on each side of them and to which they might have added the Watery Cloud over them whether it broke down upon them or no they were as it were buried in the Cloud and in the Sea so that this Notion of Typical Baptism makes nothing for Sprinkling And thus we hope we have fully evinced and clearly proved to all unbyass'd Men what Baptism is you have heard First It is immerging or dipping into the Water from the proper literal and genuine signification of the word Baptizo Secondly From the manner of Baptizing in the Primitive Times Thirdly From the Spiritual Signification of the Holy Ordinances of Baptism together with the great Design and End of Christ in the Institution of it Fourthly and lastly From the Typical and Metaphorical Baptisms we read of in the Scriptures We shall now proceed to speak of the Persons who are the true Subjects of Baptism in the next place CHAP. VI. Proving Believers or Adult Persons only to be the Subjects of Baptism from Christ's great Commission Mat. 28. WE having clearly evinced and proved what Baptism is and that Rantism is not the Ordinance 't is clearly another Act nor is Baptism any other thing than Immerging Dipping or Plunging the Body all over in Water And this being so we may from the whole infer that all those who have been only sprinkled whether as Children or Adult are all Unbaptized Persons and will certainly be so found in the Day of the Lord let their Teachers affirm or say what they will for their calling it Baptism does not make it to be so for suppose the Jews or the Off-spring of Abraham to whom God commanded Circumcision instead of doing that Act should have devised some other Thing in the room of it as the pairing off the Nails of their Children at eight days old and have given that Act the name of Circumcision would that have made it Circumcision And truly they might have as good a Plea no doubt for such an Invention considering how dangerous and grievous a thing Circumcision was to little Children as the first Inventers of Sprinkling a little Water on the Face of a Babe could pretend unto in changing Baptism into Rantism Now in the next place it behoveth us to enquire who or what kind of Persons they are that our Lord Jesus Christ hath required to be baptized and there is no better way certainly to know this than to go to the great Commission Matth. 28 19 10. All Power saith Christ is given to me in Heaven and Earth Go ye therefore teach all Nations baptizing them c. 1. First observe that this Commission was given forth by Christ just as he came out of the Grave or rose from the Dead Certainly what he said at other times should with all care be minded he being the Son of God but much more now at this time If God should have sent a Saint from the Dead to let us know what we should do would we not give all diligent heed to him but much more to Jesus Christ 2. In the second place especially considering the Power and Authority he testifies the Father had given to him as Mediator viz. to be Head and chief Governour of his Church or King and Lawgiver in all Spiritual Things and Matters over the Souls and Consciences of Men all Power to dispose of all things in Heaven and Earth or Power over Men and Angels i. e. Power to make and give forth Laws Statutes and Ordinances how and after what manner God ought by us to be worshipped in Gospel-days a Power that is given to him alone whose Laws and Appointments none have any Power to dispense with nor change or alter the Administration of to the end of the World Go ye therefore teach all Nations baptizing them c. 3. Observe what is Antecedent to Baptism Teach all Nations there must be teaching they must be first Taught or made Disciples for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as is well known and confess'd by all doth signify to discipulize or make Disciples and next baptize them And this also we find was his own practice first to make Disciples and then to baptize them
have no other sence but this that the unbelieving Yoke-fellow is sanctified or made meet in respect of conjugal use to his or her Yoke-fellow And so though the one be an Unbeliever yet they might comfortably enough live together in lawful Wedlock See our late Annotators I rather think say they it signifies brought into a State that the Believer without Offence to the Law of God may continue in a married Estate with such a Yoke-fellow for else saith the Apostle your Children were unclean that is would be accounted illegitimate But now this being determined that the Husband is thus sanctified to the Wife and the Wife to the Husband though the one be an Unbeliever hence it follows that your Children are holy that is lawfully begotten which is the only sense opposite to the Determination ver 12 13. It was 't is plain about this matter those Saints at Corinth wrote to the Apostle and therefore according to the scope of the place it cannot intend any thing else And as for the use of the word Holy for Legitimate that it is in this sense used else-where in the Scripture is evident from Mal. 2. 15. where a Seed of God or a Godly Seed can be understood in no other sense than that of a lawful Seed in opposition to those born by Polygamy Neither ought any Man to infer Federal Holiness to be intended here unless he can prove from some other Text in the New Testament any such Holiness to be in Children i. e. because Parents are Believers and in the Covenant of Grace their natural Seed must therefore be so esteemed and have the like Right to Gospel-Baptism as the Children under the Law had to Circumcision which is no where to be found in all the New-Testament but the quite contrary as has been proved and therefore this Interpretation ought not to be admitted but utterly to be rejected in regard of what the Apostle Peter asseres How false and ridiculous therefore is that which Mr. Smythies hath lately affirmed Whensoever saith he God enters into Covenant with the Parent he enters into Covenant with the Children of that Parent that is the Children were included in the Covenant and the Blessings of that Covenant belonged to the Children as well as to the Parent They that will build their Faith upon such kind of Men deserve to be deceived who speak what they please and prove nothing as if this was so because Mr. Smythies says it I must charge it upon him as false Doctrine 1. As being quite contrary to the Nature of the Gospel-Dispensation and Constitution of the New Testament-Church wherein the Fleshly Seed are rejected and cast out in respect of Church-Priviledges and Ordinances 2. What is this but to intail Grace to Nature and Regeneration to Generation in opposition to what our Saviour saith John 3. 3. and Paul Ephes 2. 1 2. 3. It also contradicts all Mens Experience How palpable is it that Godly Men have wicked Children now adays as well as in former times What wicked Children and yet in the Covenant of Grace Or were they in it and are they now fallen out of it What a Covenant then do you make that sure and everlasting Covenant of Grace to be Besides we have many learned Men and Commentators of our Mind upon this Text as Mr. Danvers observes and â—uotes them Austin saith it is to hold without doubting whatsoever that Sanctification was it was not of Power to make Christians and remit Sins Ambrose upon this place saith the Children are holy because they are born of lawful Marriage Melancthon in his Commentary upon this same Text saith thus Therefore Paul answers that their Marriages are not to be pulled asunder for their unlike Opinions of God if the impious Person do not cast away the other and for comfort he adds as a Reason The unbelieving Husband is sanctified by the believing Wife Meat is sanctified for that which is holy in use that is it is granted to Believers from God so here he speaks of the use of Marriage to be holy and to be granted of God. Things prohibited under the Law as Swines Flesh and a Woman in her Pollution were called unclean The Connexion of this if the use of Marriage should not please God your Children would be Bastards and so unclean But your Children are not Bastards therefore the use of the Marriage pleaseth God And how Bastards were unclean in a peculiar manner the Law shews Deut. 23. Camtrarius in his Commentary upon this place also saith for the unbelieving Husband hath been sanctified an unusual change of the Tense that is sanctified in the lawful use of Marriage for without this saith he it would be that their Children should be unclean that is infamous and not legitimate who so are holy that is during the Marriage are without all blot of Ignominy Erasmus saith likewise Infants born of such Parents as one being a Christian the other not are holy legitimately for the Conversion of either Wife or Husband doth not dissolve the Marriage which was made when both were Unbelievers What Reason now had Dr. Featly and others to contemn this Exposition of the Text considering what we and so many Learned Men have declared as touching this matter for a more fuller Answer read Mr. Danvers p. 166 167 168 169. But after all should it be allowed that the Holiness in this Text is indeed to be taken for a Faederal or Covenant-Holiness yet we cannot therefore grant that this is a sufficient Proof for Infant-Baptism for let the Holiness be what it will whether Moral Faederal or Matrimonial neither of these is any where assigned to be a ground of baptizing Infants the Institution Commission and Practice of the Apostolical Church being that alone that can warrant the same 'T is God's Word only not Mens Reason conceited Grounds and Inferences that can justify a Practice or make a Gospel-Ordinance if all therefore was granted which you affirm of the Covenant made with Abraham of Circumcision and Faederal-Holiness yet Infant-Baptism is gone unless you can prove God hath from this ground commanded you to baptize your Children or that they were for this Reason admitted to Baptism in the Apostles Time for all your Arguments from thence prove as strongly that your Infants may partake of the Lord's-Supper c. But that any thing less than a Profession of Faith and Repentance is or can be a sufficient ground for baptizing any Person young or old we do deny sith the New Testament is the only Rule or perfect Copy by the Authority of which we ought to act and perform all Duties of instituted Worship and administer Sacraments c. which are mâ—re positive Precepts and depend only upon the Will and Pleasure of the Law-maker So much to this pretended Proof of Infant-Baptism A sixth Proof of Infant-Baptism is grounded upon Mark 16. 16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be
GOLD REFIN'D OR Baptism in its Primitive Purity Proving Baptism in Water an Holy Institution of Jesus Christ and to continue in the Church to the End of the World. WHEREIN It is clearly evinced That Baptizo or Baptism is not Aspersion or Sprinkling or pouring a little Water upon the Face or any other part of the Body But that it is Immersion or dipping the whole Body c. Also that Believers are only the true Subjects and not Infants of that holy Sacrament Likewise Mr. Smythies Arguments for Infant-Baptism in his late Book entitled The Non-Communicant and all other Objections fully answered By BENJ. KEACH Author of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Key to open Scripture-Metaphors Isa. 1. 22. Thy Silver is become Dross London Printed for the Author and are to be sold by Nathaniel Crouch at the sign of the Bell in the Poultry 1689. THE EPISTLE To all that love our Lord Jesus Christ in Sincerity IT may possibly be a little wondred at that I should write at this time any thing upon this Subject which may seem to revive the Controversie of which little has been written of late Years it may therefore seem necessary I should speak something by way of Apology for my self First of all I must tell you that this Treatise was wrote the last Summer altho it had no Birth till now and many know what Provocations I had about that time to write in behalf of our Practice in respect of Baptism having heard how a worthy Minister whom I respect and honour who liveth not far off from me had publickly preach'd up the baptizing of little Babes bearing very hard upon those of our Perswasion and could I have had a friendly Conference with him 't is like this had not seen the Sun. Besides we were challeng'd to dispute the Point with some Ministers of the Church of England much about the same time not far from London But tho they had rendred us as odious as they well could and as if we had nothing to say for our Practice viz. for baptizing Men and Women yet when all came to all none of them would appear to defend what they had spoken which caused some to conclude it did behove me or some other to write something about it Moreover a godly Friend of some Eminency in London sent for me to his House who tho a Baptist yet walks with our Brethren called Independents and desired me that I would be pleased to write a Sheet or two upon Baptism chiefly to shew what it was sith he perceived many good People were mistaken therein and did as he conceived take that to be Baptism or Baptizing which was not the thing he having examined what the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptizo did signify and found by Lexicons and by conferring with Scholars it did not signify Aspersion Sprinkling nor pouring nor any other Washing than Immersion or total dipping of the Body in Water and therefore did conclude it necessary this thing should be further opened and would have me to conser with one able Person who well understood the Greek Tongue about it which I was willing to do Nay and besides all this when we wrote our Key to open Scripture-Metaphors we promised the Reader we would write something concerning this very matter as you may see if you read Pag. 38. Part 2. which though it be above six Years ago we never performed till now All these things considered together with that great Impulse of Spirit I found to do it I thought I had a sufficient Call to undertake the Work altho I know it has been more effectually managed by far abler Pens some Years since yet I conclude with others a short Tract of a small Price might come into more Hands than bigger Volumes would do Moreover I must confess I have not a little wondred to see so many Eminent Fathers and famous Divines both Ancient and Modern speaking so clearly as to the literal proper and genuine Signification of the word Baptizo and yet finding so many wise and learned Men of late so strangely contradicting themselves by their own Practice I am sure if Prejudice and Partiality were laid aside and Men would deal faithfully with their own Consciences they must confess our Practice of Immersion or dipping Believers in Water in the Name of the Father c. must of necessity be congruous both with the literal and spiritual Signification of the word Baptism and Practice of the Apostles and Primitive Church and so it will be found one day and that they have no just cause given them to reproach or charge us as they do who laying the Foundation of their own House false or not according to the Patern and not contented so to do neither but vilifie and reproach them who build exactly according to the Direction of the Master-Builder We marvel how they can satisfy themselves to keep up that Practice of theirs of Rantism since there is nothing to be said in the Defence of it from God's Word and if once it was laid aside with the wrong Subject as an unwarrantable Rite and they would cleave to the Primitive Institution and Practice what a glorious Reformation in point of Church-Constitution and Discipline would there be and what a sweet Harmony and Vnion would follow amongst us for there has been no one thing that hath caused like Contention in the Church for many Years as this of Infants-sprinkling hath If our Brethren would but lay this seriously to Heart I can't but think it would put them to a stand or pause about it It had need lie clear in the Word of God since so great a stress as the Foundation of their Church in such an eminent manner in respect of its Constitution is laid upon it and it being that main thing that obstructs and hinders that blessed Vnion and Fellowship amongst so many good Christians as it doth who hardly in any other things differ at all in any Article of Faith or Practice And whereas our Brethren seem to fly for Refuge to that indirect and remote Signification of the word Baptizo of washing yet how apparent is it that it means no other Waâ—â—â— but such as is by dipping swilling or total wetâ—â—â—â— that thing Part Member or Person all over â—it Water that is said to be baptized for tho all dipping or baptizing may be called a washing yet all washing is not dipping c. In a proper sense the word Baptize Wilson in his Dictionary saith is derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tingo to dip or plunge into the Water and signifieth primarily such a kind of washing as is used in Bucks where Linnen is plunged and dipt c. But how evident it is that sprinkling or pouring is no such washing viz. baptizing Ainsworth upon Lev. 15. 5. says to baptize or wash his Flesh as is expressed ver 13 16. meaneth his whole Body likewise saith a great Author the Hebrews affirm in every place
the Subject in Water and that signification is far off from Sprinkling Can any thing be said to be truly wash'd that hath only a little Water sprinkled upon it The best Lexicons and most eminent Criticks as well as the holy Scripture do most plainly decide the Controversy as Mr. Danvers and others observe Scapula and Stephens two as great Masters of the Greek Tongue as most we have do tell us in their Lexicons that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies mergo immergo obruo item tingo quod sit immergendo inficere imbuere viz. to dip plunge overwhelm put under cover over to die in colour which is done by plunging Grotius says it signifies to dip over Head and Ears Pasor An Immersion Dipping or Submersion Vossius says It implieth a washing the whole Body Mincoeus in his Dictionary says that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in the Latin Baptismus in the Dutch Doopset or Doopen Baptismus or Baptisme to dive or duck in Water and the same with the Hebrew Tabal which the Septuagint or Seventy Interpreters render by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptiso to dip as these Texts in the old Testament shew Gen. 37. 31. Exod. 12. 22. Lev. 4. 6. and 17. 14. Deut. 33. 24. Num. 16. 18. 2 King. 5. 14 c. This saith Casaubon was the Rite of Baptizing that Persons were plunged into the Water which the very word Baptizo sufficiently demonstrates Which as it does not extend so far as to sink down to the Bottom to the hurt of the Person so is it not to swim upon the Superficies Baptism ought to be administred by plunging the whole Body in Water Also I find our late Famous Learned and Reverend Dr. Du-Veil in his Literal Explanation of the Acts Chap. 1. vers 5. citing the same Author in these words The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says Casaubon is to dip or plunge as if it were to dye Colour Leigh in his Critica Sacra saith its native and proper signification is to dip into the Water or to plunge under Water Mat. 3. 6. Acts 8. 38. and that it is taken from a Dyer's Fat and imports a dying or giving a fresh Colour for which also he quotes Casaubon Bucanan Bullinger Zanchy Spanhemius He saith withal that some would have it signify Washing which sense Erasmus he saith opposed affirming that it was not otherwise so than by Consequence for the proper signification was such a dipping or plunging as Dyers use for dying of Clothes Salmasius saith that that is not Baptism which they give to Children but Rantism Beza on Mat. 3. 11. saith the word Baptizo signifies to dye by dipping or washing Selden saith That the Jews took that Baptism wherein the whole Body was not baptized to be void Mr. Daniel Rogers saith That the Minister is to dip in Water as the meetest Act the word Baptizo notes it for the Greeks wanted not other words to express any other Act besides Dipping if the Institution could bear it What resemblance of the Burial and Resurrection of Christ is in Sprinkling All Antiquity and Scripture confirm that it was Dipping If you would saith Dr. Taylor attend to the proper signification of the word Baptism signifies plunging in Water or dipping with washing In the Synod of Celichyth where Wolfred Arch-Bishop of Canterbury presided as 't is cited by Dr. Du-Veil it was ordered that the Presbyters should take heed that when they administred the Sacrament of Baptism they should not do it by pouring Water but always by plunging according to the Example of the Son of God who was plunged in the Waters of Jordan The same Learned Author affirms this was the constant practice of the Universal Church till the time of Clement the 5th who was crowned Pope saith he Anno 1305 under whom first of all the Second Synod of Ravenna approved the Abuse introduc'd into some Churches about an hundred Years before that Baptism without any Necessity should be administred by Aspersion Hence saith he it came to pass that contrary to the Analogy or intended mystical signification of this Sacrament all the VVest for the most part in this Age they use Rantism that is Sprinkling instead of Baptism as Zepper speaks to the great scandal of the Greeks and Russians who to this day plunge into the VVater those they Baptize and deny any one rightly baptized who is not plung'd into the VVater according to the Precept of Christ as we may find in Sylvester Sguropalus and Cassander the Custom of the Ancient Church was not Sprinkling but Immersion in pursuance of the sense of the word Baptizo in the Commandment and of the Example of our Blessed Saviour saith Dr. Taylor The Greek word Baptein saith Salmasius ftom which the word Baptizein derives signifies Immersion nor did the Ancients otherways Baptize Mr. Joseph Mede saith that there was no such thing as Sprinkling or Rantism used in Baptism in the Apostles Days nor many Ages after He had spoke more proper if he had said there was no Rantism used in the Apostles Days but Baptism than to say no Rantism used in Baptism sith he could not be ignorant but that they are two distinct Actions and it cannot be Baptism at all if it be only Sprinkling or Rantism as is now used Dipping or Immersion being the very Thing not an Accident but an Essential so absolutely necessary that it can't be the thing without it The ancient Vse of Baptism saith Chamier was to dip the whole Body into the Element therefore did John baptize in a River Neither is it amiss to give you what Dr. Hammond speaks upon this account in his Annotations upon John 13. 10. where he saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies an Immersion or washing the whole Body and which answereth to the Hebrew Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used for dipping in the Old Testament and therefore tells us upon Matth. 3. 1. that John baptized in a River viz. in Jordan Mark 1. 5. in a Confluence of Water as Aenon John 3. 23. because 't is said there was much Water which he further makes out by the Name by which the Greeks called the Lakes where they used to wash also the Ancients he says called their Baptisterions or the Vessels containing their Baptismal Water Columbethras viz. swimming or diving-places being made very large with Partitions for Men and Women To all these famous Authors it may do well to add our late Annotations begun by the Learned Mr. Pool newly printed see what they say on Mat. 3. 6. A great part of those who went out to hear John were baptized that is dipped in Jordan and on Mat. 28. 20. say they it is true the first Baptism of which we read in holy Writ were by Dipping the Persons baptized The Dutch Translation according to their Language reads Dipping Matth. 3.
baptized at once in that first Church so that we may conclude there were many thousands of Believers who doubtless had many Children born unto them during the time of the Gospel 〈◊〉 in the History we have recorded in the New Testament and yet we read not of one of their Children upon the account of federal Holiness and their Parents covenanting with God baptized and can any be so blind as to think the holy God would have left this thing so in the dark without the least hint or intimation had it been any of his Mind or Counsel that Believers Seed should be baptized I am sure they cannot say it without reflecting upon the Faithfulness Care and Wisdom of God. CHAP. VIII Proving Believers the only true Subjects of Baptism from the special ends of this holy Sacrament WHat the special end and use of Baptism is comes next in order to be considered wherein it will more fully and clearly appear that no Infant in Non-Age ought by any means to be baptized First of all it was ordained to be a Sign 〈…〉 the Baptized of some inward 〈…〉 viz. of the Person 's Death unto 〈…〉 to a new Life buried with 〈…〉 i. e. Christ doth certainly 〈…〉 â—mmediately if not wholly in 〈…〉 Scripture to that outward Sign 〈…〉 that in which there is a plain Representation of the Mystery and inward Grace we are said to be buried and risen both in Signification and also in lively Representation of the inward and spiritual Burial and Resurrection with Christ Secondly Here is mention made of the Sign and of the Thing signified And as for that which is spoken of under this Expression Buried in Baptism 't is delivered as a Mâ—dium saith one whereby as a Motive whereunto and as a Reason wherefore as an Image and Representation wherein we are both to read and remember and also practise and perform that other for do but mark how shall we that are dead to Sin i. e. should be live any longer therein Know ye not that as many of you as were baptized into Christ i. e. into or in token of an Interest in him and of a Oneness and Fellowship with him by Faith are baptized into his Death i.e. in token of such a Communion with the Power of his Death as to kill Sin and crucifie the old Man so that henceforth we should not serve Sin therefore hence it is saith he that in Baptism i. e. the outward Sacrament we are buried with him i. e. outwardly visibly bodily in Water into his Death i. e. in token and resemblance of our dying unto Sin by virtue of his Death That we should be ever practically mindful of this That like as Christ rose again after he was dead so we should rise to a new Life for if we have been planted together in the likeness of his Death i. e. signally in outward Baptism spiritually and really in the inward Work of Death unto Sin c performed by the Spirit upon the Soul we shall be also in the likeness of his Resurrection Thirdly This Burial and Resurrection that is immediately expressed by these words Buried with him in Baptism wherein ye are also risen with him is made a Motive Argument and Incitement to the spiritual Death and Resurrection for therefore are we perswaded to die to Sin and live righteously because in Baptism we are buried in Water and raised again in token that we ought so to do and to this end are we baptized and buried and raised therein and so interested into all the other Benefits of Christ's Death Remission of Sins and Salvation viz. that we should die to Sin and live holily and to the end also that we may thereby be put in mind so to do Now if this Death and Burial in Baptism be to this end viz. to teach us and shew us how we must die to Sin Then I infer two things First That the burial in Baptism here spoken of is not the Death to Sin for the Motive and things we are moved to do are two and so are the Sign and the Thing signified Secondly That Infants are not capable Subjects of Baptism for this Sacrament calls for Understanding and Judgment and Senses to be exercised in all that partake thereof or else the whole work will be altogether insignificant Therefore saith one to carry a poor Babe to Baptism is as much as to carry it to hear a Sermon A Sign as Pareus observeth is some outward thing appearing to the Sense through which some inward thing is at the same time apprehended by the Understanding Therefore saith Mr. Perkins the preaching of the Word and the administration of Sacraments are all one in substance for in the one the Witness of God is seen and in the other heard Secondly Another end of Baptism is that it might be a signal Representation of a Believers Union with Christ hence called a being baptized into Christ and a putting on of Christ As many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ and are all one in Christ Jesus saith Mr. Baxter and are Abraham's Seed and Heirs according to Promise Gal. 3. 27 28 29. This speaks the Apostle of the probability grounded on a credible Profession c. And further saith he our Baptism is the Solemnizing of our Marriage with Christ and 't is a new and strange kind of Marriage where there is no Profession of Consent Now if this be true which Mr. Baxter affirms and I see no cause to doubt of it most worthy Men as well as Scripture agreeing in this case with him how absurd and ridiculous a thing is the Invention of Infant-Baptism sith all Men know they are not capable to signify their Consent of Marriage with Christ if any thing in the World cuts in pieces the very Sinews of Infants Baptism 't is this for there is a Contract made between both Parties before the Solemnization of Marriage and how can a Babe of two or ten days old do that 't is a strange Marriage if it be not done though more strange indeed without the other But may be some will say 't is a Marriage by Proxy or Sureties as Princes sometimes are married Answ Sometimes there has been some such like Action done I must confess But does not the Prince actually consent so to be married But all this while who has required any thing of this at our Hands Are not Sureties in Baptism a meer human Invention and have not our Brethren cast it away as such The third end of Baptism as Mr. Perkins observes is this viz. 'T is a Sign to Believers of the Covenant on God's part of the washing away of our Sins in the Blood of Christ we see saith lie what is done in Baptism the Covenant of Grace is solemnized between God and the Party baptized and in this Covenant something belongs to God and something to the Party baptized Are Infants capable thus to covenant with God though
saved but he that believeth not shall be damned Now they affirm that Infants are Believers and therefore are to be baptized Mr. Smythies says Infants are Believers in a sense or else they could not be saved nor have right to the Promises of Christ in the Gospel and if they are in any sense such Believers as are intitled to Salvation they are such Believers as have a right to Baptism if the Estate belongs to a Child in the Cradle the Indentures and Seals of that Estate belong to him likewise the Child of a Believer may as well be called a Believer as the Child of a Proselyte was called a proselyte if God gives Children but the denomination of Believers it is sufficient to entitle them to Baptism Thus Mr. Smythies But how does it appear that Infants are Believers in any sense is there any Argument or Scripture brought by this Man to prove them so to be if he can prove they have Faith and do believe in Christ he will do more than all the Men that ever lived on Earth could do I mean Children as such in common and in an ordinary way to be Believers True nothing is too hard for God to do he that can make an Ass to speak can as well cause a Babe to believe But how does it appear God has given them either the Habit of Faith or the Act of Faith or Faith in any sense to render them to be Believers But 't is intimated they are Believers by their Parents Faith why may not their Parents Baptism serve as well as their Parents Faith and they receive the Lord's Supper for them in their Names also and that be imputed to the Children by virtue of their Parents Faith And what though the Estate belongs to the Child in the Cradle together with the Indenture and Seals of that Estate Is it required the Child in the Cradle should therefore set his Seal to the Indenture is that requisite or would it make the Estate the more firm or sure to him But when you can prove Grace and Salvation to be Hereditary and that the Father's being a Believer and a godly Person all his Children must needs be such too you do your business Secondly But why do you say Children must be Believers or else they can't be saved who told you so Because Faith in Adult Persons is required as necessary in them if they are saved Can't God save poor Infants without they also do believe has God told you he cannot or will not save them except they believe I must confess I wonder at your Ignorance and daring Boldness God as Dr. Taylor observes may have many ways to magnify his Grace through Jesus Christ to them which we know not of and what have you to do with the Secrets of God who made you one of his Privy-Council you may as well say unless they repent they cannot be saved from Christ's words Luk 13. 3 5. and that they must be obedient and take up the Cross for these things are required of Adult Persons that would be saved as well as believing Thirdly Prove that God has given Children the Denomination of Believers or if it was granted he hath would it therefore â—ollow they may be baptized certainly no for we read of many who were said to believe they had some kind of Faith and so in some sense had the denomination of 〈◊〉 and yet had no right to Baptism for such ought to have 〈◊〉 Faith or to believe with all their Hearts 〈◊〉 Philip said to the Eunuch Act. 8. who are fit Subjects of that Ordinance or have a sufficient Title to it and would not that believing in any sense you speak of that entitles them to Salvation give them as good a right to the Lord's-Supper as to Baptism Come Sir you can't infer a right to an Ordinance from what grounds you please Baptism depends wholly I say again upon the Authority of a positive Law and express words of Institution and none but such who are made Disciples by preaching or who do actually believe ought from thence to be baptized I wonder what Faith 't is you suppose to be in Infants is it the Faith of the Church as Tho. Aquinas asserts which is intailed upon all within the pale thereof Or is it an Imputitive Faith from the Parents in Covenant as Musculus and others maintain Or is it the Faith of the Gossip or Surety as many of your Church say i. e. others believe for them Have they a justifying Faith as Mr. Baxter intimates or a dogmatical Faith only as in Mr. Blake's Sense Some as Mr. Danvers observes say 't is a Physical some a Metaphysical and some a Hyperphysical Faith. Some say they are born Believers others say they are made Believers by Baptism Now when you tell us what Faith they have we shall the better understand you and give you an Answer A Personal and actual Faith saith Dr. Taylor they have not for they have no Acts of Understanding besides how can any Man know they have Faith since he never saw any sign 〈◊〉 neither was he told so by any that could tell Secondly saith he Some say they have Imputative Faith But then so let the Sacraments be too that is if they have the Parents Faith or the Churches then so let Baptism be imputed also by derivation from them And as in their Mothers Womb and while they hang upon their Mothers Breasts they live upon their Mothers Nourishment so they may upon the Baptism of their Parents or their Mother the Church for since Faith is necessary to the susception of Baptism and they themselves confess it by striving to find out new kinds of Faith to daub the matter such as the Faith such must be the Sacrament for there is no proportion between an actual Sacrament and an Imputative Faith this being in immediate and necessary order to that This saith the Bishop We know there are some argue stifly for Infants having habitual Faith but as the said Doctor saith Are there any Acts precedent concomitant or consequent to this pretended Habit this strange Invention saith he is absolutely without Art without Scripture Reason or Authority But the Men are to be excused unless they had any better Arguments to defend their Practice they are forc'd to confess the Truth in the main viz. That Faith is required of Persons to be baptized and therefore they do what they can to prove Infants do believe But I will conclude this with what the said Doctor further saith And if any Man runs for Succour to that exploded Cresphugeton that Infants have Faith or any other inspired Habit of I know not what or how we desire no more advantage than that they are constrained to answer without Revelation against Reason common Sense and all the Experience in the World. CHAP. XII Containing an Answer to several other Arguments brought for Infant-Baptism Object 1. THough there is