An Appendix to the Answer Concerning Paedobaptism

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

SInce you desire Syllogisms, I have gratified you therein.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Minor cannot be denied.

Arg. 5. That Practice that tends not to the Glory of God, nor to the Profit of the Child, when done, nor in after-times when grown up, but may prove hurtful and of a dangerous Nature to him, cannot be a Truth of God. But the Practice of Infant-Baptism tends not to the Glory of God, nor to the Profit of the Child when baptized, nor in after-times when grown up, but may prove hurtful and of a dangerous Nature to him. Ergo. See Levite. 10. 1, 2. where Moses told Aaron, because his Sons had done that which God commanded them not, that God would be sanctified by all that drew near unto him; intimating, that such who did that which God commanded not, did not sanctify or glorify God therein. Can God be glorified by Man's Disobedience, or by adding to his Word; by doing that which God hath not required? Matth. 16. 9. In vain do you worship me, teaching for Doctrine the Commandments of Men: and that that Practice 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 engrafted also into Christ's Church. Sure all understanding Men know Baptism of Believers is not called Regeneration, but only metonymically, it being a Figure of Regeneration. But they ignorantly affirm also, that Infants then have a federal Holiness; as if this imagined Holiness comes in by the Child's Covenant in Baptism, which may prove hurtful and dangerous to them, and cause them to think Baptism confers Grace, which is a great Error.

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 cannot perform those things; then Infants ought not to be baptized. But the Church of England says, that Faith and Repentance are required of all such, &c. and speak truly, and yet Infants cannot perform these things. Ergo, Infants ought not to be baptized.

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

Answ. If Suretyship for Children in Baptism is not required of God, and the Sureties do not, 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 Suretyship in Children's Baptism is not required of God, and they do not, cannot perform what they promise. Ergo.

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

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

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

Erasmus saith,

Calvin saith,

Ludovicus Vives saith,

The Magdeburgenses say,

Dr. Taylor saith,

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

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

Athanasius saith,

Chrysostom saith,

Basil saith

Augustine saith▪

Theophilact saith,

Isychius saith,

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

Mr. Ball saith,

And as to the Minor, 'tis acknowledged by our Adversaries, it is not to be found in the Letter of the Scripture. And as to the Consequences drawn therefrom, we have proved, they are not natural from the Premises; and though we admit of Consequences and Inferences if genuine, yet not in the case of an Institution respecting a practical Ordinance that is of mere 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 show, as well the End and Ground of the Ordinance, as the Subject and Manner of it. But the Scripture speaks nothing of the End or Ground of Pedo-Baptism, or for what reason they ought to be baptized. Ergo, 'tis no Institution of Christ.

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

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

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

Arg. 12. That cannot be an Ordinance of Christ, for which there is neither Command nor Example in all God's Word, nor Promise to such who do it, nor Threatenings 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 Threatenings to such who are not. Ergo.

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

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

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

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

The Major cannot be denied.

The Minor is clear; See thou make all things according to the Pattern shown thee in the Mount, Exod. 25. 40. and Levite. 10. 1, 2. See how Nadab and Abihu sped, for presuming to vary from the Command of God, and Uzzah, though 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 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 human Traditions and Innovations in God's Worship. Ergo, to sprinkle or baptize Infants is a great Evil, and to be avoided.

The Major will not be denied.

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

Arg. 16. Whatsoever Practice reflects upon the Honor, 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 Honor, 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 denied.

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

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

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

Arg. 17. That Custom or Law which Moses never delivered to the Jews, nor is anywhere written in the Old Testament, was no Truth of God, nor of Divine Authority. But that Custom or Law to baptize Proselytes either Men, Women or Children, was never given to the Jews by Moses, nor is it any where written in the Old Testament. Ergo, It was no Truth of God, nor of Divine Authority: And evident it is, as Sir Norton Knatchbul shows,

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

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

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

Mr. Baxter confirms the Substance of the Major. These are his very Words, i. e. As many as have been baptized have put on Christ, and are all one in Christ Jesus; and are Abraham' s Seed, and Heirs, according to the Promise, Gal. 3. 27, 28, 29.

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

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

The Major our Opposits generally grant, particularly see what Mr. Baxter saith,

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.

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, Besides, will any Pedo-Baptist say, that the Baptism of the Adult is the solemnizing of the Souls Marriage with Christ, and not the Baptism of Infants. Reader, observe how our Opposits are forced sometimes to speak the Truth, though it overthrows their own Practice of Pedo-Baptism.

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

Mr. Baxter in the said Treatise lays down the Substance of this Argument also, take his own Words, i. e.

And evident it is, say I, from hence none but such at Age ought to be baptized.

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

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

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

He might have added, but Infidels and Heathens have no Right to Church-Membership, &c. Ergo, And if so, why dare any nowadays admit of Infants, who are capable to make no Profession. He adds, Furthermore he saith, He proceeds.

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

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

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

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

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

That Major will not he denied.

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

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

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

2. The Figurative Baptism was, 1st. That of the Red Sea, wherein the •• thers were buried, as it were, unto Moses in the Sea, and under the Cloud. Pools Annotations on 1 Cor. 10. 2.

The 2d. was that of Noah 's Ark. See Sir Norton Knatchb • ll:

3. Metaphorical Baptism is that of the Spirit and of Affliction: the first signifies not a sprinkling of the Spirit, but the great Effusion of the Spirit, like that at Pentecost, Acts 1. 4, 5. Shall be baptized, &c. on which Words Casaubon speaks thus: See Dr. D • Veil on Acts 2.

Also 〈◊〉 on Acts 2. saith, And the Baptism of Afflic ••• are those great depths or overwhelming of Afflictions, like that of our Savior's 〈◊〉 , i. e. no part free; Matth. 20. 22. 〈◊〉 you have the same Greed Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and like that, of David, who saith, 〈…〉 him out of gr •• t Waters.

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

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

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