the doctrine of baptism/chapter 20

committed to historic Baptist & Reformed beliefs

history

documents

library

biography

A Plain Christian Treatise, explaining
the Doctrine of Baptism, and the two
Covenants made with Abraham, and
his two-fold Seed.

GOD'S ORDINANCE OF DIPPING BELIEVERS IS AGAINST THE IDOL OF INFANT'S SPRINKLING

I hope that such as fear God will take heed how they harden their hearts in the practice of so heinous a sin and in the neglect of so solemn a duty as the Ordinance of dipping believers in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. For, is there any man able to declare from Scripture that ever any solemn Ordinance of standing use in the Church of the New Testament, had for its institution any less than a command of God and a promise of blessing to the faithful performance of the same? But there is for children's baptism neither command to institute nor any promise to bless, but rather indeed, the performers of that worship, may expect a curse and not a blessing in the performance of the same, Psalm 99:8" "Thou answerest them O Lord our God, thou art a God that forgavest them, though thou tookest vengeance of their inventions," with Psal. 106:29, "Thus they provoked him to anger with their inventions, and the plague broke in upon them," as it did in the 2 Chron. 26:19-21,

"Then Uzziah was wroth, and had a censor in his hand, to burn incense, and while he was wroth with the Priests, the leprosy rose up in his forehead, before the Priests in the house of the Lord; from besides the incense Altar, and Azariah the chief Priest, and all the rest of the Priests looked upon him, and behold, he was leprous in his forehead, and they thrust him out from thence, yea himself hasted to go out, because the Lord had smitten him. And Uzziah the King, was a Leper to the day of his death, and dwelt in a several house, for he was cut off from the house of the Lord."

Thus you see the sad curse of God executed against such like inventions in the service of God that men set up in the room of God's commands, thereby justling out His Commands, as the Scripture says. This is for a man to set up his Posts by God's Posts, and in a sense, setting up himself in the place and room of God. This flows from an abundance of pride as is here said of King Uzziah that proceeding his sin, his heart was lifted up to his own destruction.

Now most certain it is that Moses was faithful in all God's house as a servant in giving the Church then exact and perfect rules as to how they should serve God. They must not add unto these nor from which they must not detract nor take away, Deut. 4:2. So Christ is every way as faithful over His house as a Lord, Heb. 3:4-6. Rightly to this purpose it is applied in Col. 2:8 with 20-22.

For men to embrace any worship of their God that they have not a rule for, is in that chapter condemned as will-worship and traditions of men. They should warily consider that it fosters in men a sinful neglect of that holy and solemn Ordinance of dipping believers.

Do not all our Protestant authors in all their disputations against the Papists defend that faith and repentance precede baptism and thereby confuting the Papists and their claims that Baptism is to convey grace where it is not, but to confirm Grace and strengthen it where it is? In that Catechism embraced generally by all Protestants in the Common Liturgy in England, this question is demanded, "What is required of them who are to be baptized?" The answer is, "Faith and repentance." This does plainly manifest that it was the judgment of all those who were Protestants owning that Liturgy, that none ought to be baptized but such as repent and believe. And not only so but that do confess faith and repentance. This is because in Baptism there is, as Peter says, "The answer of a good conscience," 1 Pet. 3:19, compared with Philip and the Eunuch, Acts 8:38: "If thou believest with all thy heart thou mayest?" Saith the Eunuch, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God," so in Acts 19 it is said, "They came to the Apostle confessing their deeds."

Now consider that this doctrine that faith and repentance must needs precede baptism, was defended in all those times. Why? Because they concluded it a seal of the New Covenant. Therefore, where persons were not in a Covenant by Faith, they did in opposition to the Papists defend that they had no interest in baptism.