The fallacy of infants baptisme discovered. Or, Five arguments, to prove that infants ought not to be baptized. Delivered in private by Captain Hobson, who should that day (with Master Knowls, and some others;) have discussed the thing in publike with Master Callamy, and Master Cranford, &c. And now published for the benefit of those that seeke the truth in love. Hobson, Paul. 1645 Approx. 37 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 12 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2009-10 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A86419 Wing H2272 Thomason E311_18 ESTC R200461 99861201 99861201 113329

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

 Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A86419) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 113329) Images scanned from microfilm: (Thomason Tracts ; 51:E311[18]) The fallacy of infants baptisme discovered. Or, Five arguments, to prove that infants ought not to be baptized. Delivered in private by Captain Hobson, who should that day (with Master Knowls, and some others;) have discussed the thing in publike with Master Callamy, and Master Cranford, &c. And now published for the benefit of those that seeke the truth in love. Hobson, Paul. S. S. [6], 2, 15, [1] p. [s.n.], London. : Printed in the yeer of discoveries. 1645. Editor's note "To the courteous reader" signed: S.S. Page numbers 1-2 repeated. Annotation on Thomason copy: "Decemb: 10th". Reproduction of the original in the British Library.

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.

 eng Infant baptism -- Early works to 1800. 2008-10 Assigned for keying and markup 2008-12 Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2009-01 Sampled and proofread 2009-01 Text and markup reviewed and edited 2009-02 Batch review (QC) and XML conversion

THE FALLACY OF INFANTS BAPTISME DISCOVERED. OR, Five ARGUMENTS, to prove that INFANTS ought not to be baptized.

Delivered in private by Captain HOBSON, who ſhould that day (with Maſter Knowls, and ſome others;) have diſcuſſed the thing in publike with Maſter Callamy, and Maſter Cranford, &c.

And now publiſhed for the benefit of thoſe that ſeeke the truth in love.

Col. 2.23.

Which things have indeed a ſhew of wiſdome in will worſhip.

 Iſai. 1.12.

Who hath required this at your hands?

LONDON, Printed in the yeer of Diſcoveries. 1645.

To the courteous Reader. READER,

I Who am one that waits upon Truth, deſiring to know Truth, but am not to be conſidered under any of thoſe names of diſtinction, as a member of any Independent Congregation, or one that they call an Anabaptiſt, but a friend to them and others, ſo far as they are one with the Truth: I having by a providence, had an oportunity to hear one Captain Hobſon (with two Miniſters more) in private, who ſhould have diſputed in publike with Maſter Callamy and ſome others, about the point of Baptiſme, having taken the heads of what Captain Hobſon delivered, and conceiving that the good which I received by it, ſhould engage me to communicate it to others, I was therefore willing to put it forth in print. But I deſire you (Chriſtian Reader) that you would conſider that it is but the heads of what hee delivered, as I tooke it from him in ſhorthand, and therefore if there be any broken expreſſions in it, attribute it not to him, but to me, who am not ſo well skild (as in underſtanding, ſo) in writing Syllogiſmes, which (I underſtand) he was enjoyned ſo to ſpeak, had he ſpoke in publike, and he ſeemed to be willing to ſpeake in private, as he ſhould have done there. There was two Miniſters more who exerciſed alſo, whoſe arguments were worthy the printing, could I have taken them ſo as to bring them out but not taking of them ſo perfectly, I was loath to diſhonour that truth that I believe was in them.

My deſire is, that neither I nor you, may ſo look upon this, under the conſideration of that diviſion that ſeems to be amongst men of Presbyterians and Anabaptiſts, and Separatiſts, but that theſe names of diſtinction may bee laid down, and that we may all as ſonnes of Truth, try every thing by the rules of Truth, and love each other in truth, which I know is that which would put an end to that great confuſion and trouble that I ſee abroad. And I hope when you have read this, you will ſee (as well as I) that we have for a long time been led in blindneſſe, taking that upon truſt, which now I ſee is contrary to Scripture, even Infants Baptiſme.

So deſiring you to paſſe by infirmities in it, and make a good conſtruction of it, I leave you to Truth, deſiring you not to have any prejudiciall thoughts againſt him that ſpake it, notwithſtanding any infirmities you may ſee in him that writes it.

Yours in the Lord Jeſus, S.S.
THE FALLACY OF INFANTS Baptiſme diſcovered. Deareſt Freinds:

SEeing a providence hath brought us together at this time, I ſhall therefore endevour, according to the intent of our meeting to declare my ſelfe, and ſo declare my ſelfe, that I may not only anſwer your expectations, but directly our intentions, in ſpeaking to the point in hand, which this day ſhould have been diſcuſſed in publike: But ſeeing a providence hath prevented us; and wee who thought to have been in publike, are now prevented by the Civill Magiſtrate, whom wee much honour; and with all willing Subjection, are willing to Obey in all things that croſſe not the LORD JESUS CHRIST: And truly here is that which ſtayes our ſpirits, though wee were willing to declare our Judgments in publike, to the view of Many; Yet if GOD will have it other wayes, herein is our joy That the Truth knowes how beſt to make out it ſelfe; And it God by our Silence, will cauſe Truth to ſpeake, Wee rejoyce: Or if the time is not yet come to have things brought to a publike View, Wee deſire to wayte upon God, knowing that his time is beſt to make out Truth to the Sons of men.

But before I addreſſe my ſelfe to what I intend to ſpeake, I deſire that you would give mee leave to ſpeake to two or three things: Firſt, To deſire you not to thinke it ſtrange that not onely one, but two, or three ſhould ſpeak to one, and the ſame thing. Secondly, That you would not think it ſtrange for us to trade ſo much in the ſhadow, in breaking up the ſhell, and not a little to trade in the kernell; My meaning is, that wee ſhould ſpeake ſo much of the outward Ordinance; and not enter into the unfolding of the ſweet, and glorious myſtery of God in Chriſt, wrapt up in the Ordinance, which is the Life as of the Ordinance, ſo of Saints while they are obſerving it. Thirdly, I deſire that you would not thinke it ſtrange for mee to ſpeake to you, contrary to my wonted practice, which I ſhall at this time doe, onely ſpeaking in a Syllogiſticall way; for the truth is, I ſhall here endeavour to declare my ſelfe in private, as I did intend, to declare my ſelfe in publike; and the ſame grounds I intended to lay downe in publike, I ſhall lay downe here Againſt the Baptizing of Infants.

And the reaſon of my ſpeaking Syllogiſtically, is becauſe it was an Injunction laid upon us ſo, to ſpeake, had we met in publike.

But before I come to lay downe my Reaſons, I ſhall take a portion of Scripture, and draw a Concluſion, which Concluſion ſhall be as a Ground, from whence I purpoſe to build all my following Diſcourſe, the Scripture is.
MATTH. 28.20.

Teaching them to obſerve all things whatſoever I have commanded you.

IN the words there are theſe two things conſiderable: An Exhortation, And a ſweet Direction.

The Exhortation doth ariſe from the words conſidered in reference to the words before, (Verſe 19.) Go • e therefore and teach all Nations.

The Direction in theſe words, Teaching them to obſerve Whatſoever I have commanded you.

In the Exhortation (if we had time) we might obſerve:

Firſt, The Party exhorting; that's Chriſt.

Secondly, The Parties exhorted; That was the Diſciples, or Apoſtles, who were taught of Chriſt.

Thirdly, The matter exhorted to, Go teach.

From all which you may obſerve this Concluſion.

That it is the duty of all thoſe who are taught of Chriſt, Doct. to declare to other what they enjoy from Chriſt.

But this is not that which I intend to build my following diſcourſe upon. Therefore I paſſe it over.

And I come to the Direction, in which we may obſerve.

Firſt, The Party directing.

Secondly, The Parties directed.

And Thirdly, The Direction it ſelf.

Firt, The Party directing; That's Chriſt.

Secondly, The Parties directed, That is the Apoſles, on the Diſciples in this word Ye.

And Thirdly, The Direction it ſelf, in theſe words, Go and teach them to obſerve whatſoever I have commanded you.

That which I ſhall at this time ſpeak of, is in the Direction it ſelf; And from thence briefly obſerve with me theſe things.

Firſt, That the teachings of the Apoſtles concerning our duty to Chriſt, are the command of Chriſt: In theſe words, Teach them to obſerve whatſoever I command you. So that their teaching duty to Christ, was the command of Christ.

The ſecond concluſion is from theſe words, Teach them to obſerve whatſoever I command.

Thence obſerve, That the commands of Chriſt ought to be obſerved.

I might be large in ſpeaking of this;

Firſt, Becauſe I ſee men are apt rather to obſerve the commands of men then the commands of Chriſt; and ſo do exceedingly ſlight and undervalue the commands of Chriſt.

Secondly, Becauſe I apprehend that men are apt to miſtake in the commands of Chriſt, and to take that for a command that is not; and to make that no command that is. But I ſhall not at this time ſpeak of that.

The Third concluſion doth ariſe from ſomething Included in theſe words, Teach them to obſerve what I command. Implying not onely that we ſhould obſerve Chriſts commands; But in obſerving any thing as a duty to Chriſt, it muſt be in reference to a command of Chriſt, from thence obſerve this concluſion.

That all that we are to obſerve as a duty to Chriſt, muſt not ariſe from Suppoſition, but it muſt anſwer a command given out from Chriſt.

And at this time this is the concluſion I ſhall ſpeak to; Explaining the terms, and confirming the Propoſition; being that which I intend to build my following diſcourſe upon.

And in opening the terms, I ſhall be very brief: Firſt, To ſhew you what is meant by the Law of Chriſt, or the commands of Christ. Secondly, What I mean by Obſervation. Thirdly, What I mean by Suppoſition. Fourthly, The Reaſons why we are to obſerve nothing as a duty to Chriſt, but that which anſwers a Law given forth by Chriſt.

What the Law of Chriſt or the Commands of Chriſt is. Firſt, By the commands of Chriſt, my meaning is, Not the Ceremonial Law, which was a Type of Chriſt, and did in a dark way hold forth Chriſt. Nay, by the Laws of Chriſt, or the commands of Chriſt, I do not intend the Moral Law conſidered in the hand of Moſes: Though I muſt tell you, firſt, I own the Authority of that Law: Secondly, I own the Materials of that Law: But the obligement of that Law, Do and live; (for ſo it was conſidered in the hand of Moſes) So it is not to be conſidered in the hand of Chriſt to us; for now we are not to do for life; but becauſe we live: But conſider the Authority of God, and the Materials of the Law handed to us in Chriſt, ſo I own it, and deſire all Saints may do ſo. But by the commands of Chriſt, my meaning is, All thoſe commands that Chriſt gave as he was a Prophet, Prieſt, and King of his Church; either concerning our beleeving in God, or of our worſhiping or walking with God. And ſo much of that thing.

What is meant by Obſervation. Secondly, My meaning by obſervation, in a word is, Actually, and Truely, and Really to do and conform to what Chriſt commands.

What is meant by Suppoſition. And what I mean (in the Third place) by Suppoſition: By that I mean a doubtful apprehenſion that men gather up conſequentially, by the ſtrength of Reaſon and Art, and have no plain word for it. Now in ſuch a caſe, Suppoſition of one ſide, is as ſtrong as of the other: And if it be a duty to obſerve a thing under ſuch a ſuppoſed conſequence, then if there be a ſuppoſed conſequence for the contrary, it is alſo a duty to obſerve a thing contrary to that.

The Reaſons why we are to obſerve nothing as a duty, but that which anſwers a Law, or Command of Chriſt. But a duty doth not conſiſt in anſwering a Suppoſition, but a command; And that it doth, I will prove from theſe Reaſons.

Firſt, Becauſe nothing is a duty, but as it anſwers a command, Luke 17.10.

Secondly, Every thing that we obſerve, doth directly anſwer that light which doth preſent the thing to us to be obſerved. If it be a ſuppoſed light, it is but a ſuppoſed duty; if a civil light preſents to a civil man any truth of God, in his obſervation of it, it is but civil in reference to him; if a legal light preſents an Evangelical truth, to a legal perſon, in his obſervation of it, it is legal in reference to him in his obſerving; if a ſelf light preſent a real duty to an hypocrite, he obſerves it for ſelf-ends. This you may ſee, Zach. 7.5, 6. where he ſaith, When ye faſted, did ye as all faſt unto me, even to me? So then if a man obſerves a thing onely from Suppoſition, and not a command, at the beſt, it is but a ſuppoſed duty.

But Thirdly, The will of Chriſt is, that as his Members are to Beleeve in light, ſo they ſhould do in light, or obey in light, Epheſ. 5.8. But if we obſerve any thing barely from Suppoſition, and not from a command, it is obſerved in darkneſſe, and not in light: Therefore not as a duty to be obſerved.

Fourthly, We are ſo to obſerve things that we preſent to Chriſt, that not onely the manner, but the matter ſhould not come under the reproofs of Chriſt; But if we obſerve any thing as a duty to Chriſt, and have no command for it from Chriſt, it comes under the reproof of Chriſt; and he will one day ſay,Iſal. 1.12. Who hath required this as your hands? The Goſpel forbids Will-worſhip. Now, Will-worſhip is not onely to do a thing contrary to a command; but to do a thing that is thought right or good by the wiſdom of man; as Worſhip without a command, which the Apoſtle condemns, Col. 2.

Fifthly, Chriſt doth not only hold forth his Laws ſo as to declare duty; but ſo as that they may be ſufficient to ſtop the mouths of them that oppoſe duty, Matth. 5.16. But to obſerve any thing as a duty, and not from a command of Chriſt, but from Suppoſition; that is not ſufficient to ſtop the mouths of them that oppoſe duty: Therefore ought not to be done; for you muſt know Suppoſitions (as I ſaid before) are as ſtrong of one ſide as of the other.

Sixthly, The ſixth reaſon I ſhall draw from thoſe words, Rom. 15.4. where he ſaith, What is written, is written for our learning: I ſhall form my reaſon thus, That which is written the Saints ſhould learn; But it is no where written That we ſhould obſerve any thing as a duty, in reference to Suppoſition, but to anſwer a command Therefore to obſerve any thing as a duty to Chriſt, without a command, is not a Doctrine for Saints to learn.

In the ſeventh place, I might give you one reaſon more, and that thus, That which anſwers the Love of Chriſt, and our friendly relation with Chriſt, that's duty and nothing elſe; But to obſerve any thing not from Suppoſition, but to anſwer a Law or Command of Chriſt; that's that which anſwers to the Love of Chriſt, and our friendly relation with Chriſt, and therefore Duty, John 14.23. and 15.14.

Theſe Reaſons (deareſt Friends) I have given to you to confirm what before I ſpake, which was, That we are to obſerve nothing as a duty to Chriſt, but that which anſwers a Law given forth by Chriſt.

I might here draw divers Uſes, Ʋſe. which might be uſeful for us; But at this time I ſhall onely ſpeak of a Uſe of Reproof; To reprove thoſe that will obſerve things, and in their obſerving, plead for it as a duty to Chriſt, and yet have no command for it from Chriſt: Amongſt the reſt, this is that which I ſhall here reprove, The Baprizing of Infants; which is the very point in controverſie: And becauſe I deſire to ſpeak directly to the Queſtion as it was ſtated; I ſhall here rehearſe to you what the Queſtion was, and what they were to prove and what we were to prove. The Queſtion was Whether Infants of beleeving parents were to be Baptized, ye • , or no? They were to prove That it was their duty, and they ought to do it. We were to prove That they ought not to do it.

I ſhall not at all go about to meddle with the juſtifying of our practice concerning the Baptizing of Beleevers; for that is not the point in hand. Though I muſt tell you, It had been but a reaſonable thing for them by Scripture to endeavour to juſtifie their practice; and we by Scripture to juſtifie ours; and then neither of us would have been put upon the proof of a Negative, which every rational man knows is the worſt and of the ſtaff. But ſeeing it was ſo, I ſhall therefore direct my ſpeech to give forth my judgement concerning that thing.

The Reaſons that I ſhall at this time lay down (according to time and ſtrength) Why children ought not to be Baptized, are theſe:

The firſt is this: That which doth (not onely accidentally, but) directly deny Chriſt to be come in the fleſh, That ought not to be done:

But the Baptizing of Infants doth directly deny Chriſt to be come in the fleſh;

Therefore ought it not to be done.

I know that no man can deny the Major, which is ſo clearly confirmed, 1 John 4.3. with divers other places.

But at this time I will prove the Minor, That Baptizing of Infants doth directly deny Chriſt to be come in the fleſh; And that I prove thus:

That which doth keep on foot that which was before Chriſt, and ended by Chriſt, conſidered come in the fleſh; that denies Chriſt to be come in the fleſh:

But the Baptizing of Infants doth keep on foot that which was before Chriſt, and ended by Chriſt, as come in the fleſh;

And therefore it denies Chriſt to be come in the fleſh.

For the proof of this,

Firſt, I ſhall unfold to you what I mean by that which was before Chriſt, and ended by Chriſt come in the fleſh. That which was before Chriſt, was, That God made a Covenant with Abraham, which Covenant ran in the fleſh, and was intail'd to generation; and not upon condition of Regeneration. And this you may ſee, Gen. 17.7, 12. And this was that Covenant that Circumciſion of Children had a reference to; And whoſoever was a childe of Abraham, conſidered as a ſon of the fleſh, had a right to it, and might, and did plead for priviledges by it. But when Chriſt came, the natural Branches were cut off Rom. 11.20, 21. and no man is now conſidered a ſon of Abraham, or the Seed of Abraham, but as he beleeveth, Gal. 3.7, 9, 14, 22, 28, 29. And now there is no promiſe that runs forth to any conſidered in referened to a carnal generation; but a ſpiritual Regeneration, John 3, 5. Therefore when they came to John (Matth. 3.7, 8, 9.) to be Baptized. He takes them off from pleading their priviledge conſidered in the fleſh, and tells them, Say not in your heart, You have Abraham to your Father, and ſo plead for Baptiſm. But he exhorts them to Believe and Repent.

And by this you ſee what I mean by that which was before Chriſt, which was, The Promiſes and Covenant running in a natural line; but it is now ended, and runs in a ſpiritual But now to Baptize Children becauſe their Parents Beleeve, and upon this ground, Becauſe it was the ſame (as they ſay) with Circumciſion; in ſo doing they go about to make the promiſes to run in a natural line, which was ended by Chriſt; And therefore in the obſerving of it, deny Chriſt to be come in the fleſh.

Secondly,

That which doth directly take from Chriſt that which the Holy Ghoſt gives to Chriſt, conſidered come in the fleſh; That denies Chriſt come in the fleſh.

But the Baptizing of Infants doth directly take from Chriſt that which the Holy Ghoſt gives to Chriſt conſidered come in the fleſh.

Therefore it denies Chriſt come in the fleſh.

And for the proof of this, I ſhall declare to you what I mean by that which the Holy Ghoſt gives to Chriſt conſidered come in the fl • ſh.

The Holy Ghoſt gives to Chriſt a pre-eminence above all others that were before him in his Prophetical and Kingly Office.Col. 1.18. Phil. 2.9.

In his Prophetical Office,Joh. 6.68. Matth. 11.9. Luke 24.19. that neither Moſes nor the Prophets were to be compared with him, but far inferiour to to him, and his Office; So inferiour, that he was not to be expounded by them; but in giving out his minde conſidered come in the fleſh, he was to expound and unfold them. But now men in their going about to plead for the Baptizing of Infants, do exceedingly undervalue Chriſt's Prophetical Office in this, that they make the old Teſtament expound the new;Matth. 5.21, 22, 27, 28. whereas the new ſhould expound the old; Chriſt ſhould, and doth expound Moſes; But there is no warrant for us to bring Chriſt under the Expoſition of Moſes; And men do undervalue the Lord Chriſt, in making Moſes ſpeak that which Chriſt ſpeaks not, or bringing Moſes to Chriſt, as a greater light to unfold the leſſer; They do (I ſay) exceedingly undervalue Chriſt, and that thus.

The Light unfolding or the Wiſdom unfolding, muſt be greater then the matter unfolded: And therefore he that goeth about to make Moſes mouth to ſpeak out Chriſt's minde, in things that concern Chriſt as come in the fleſh, ſets up Moſes above Chriſt; and denies Chriſt to be come in the fleſh.

Secondly,Iſai. 9.6, 7. Revel. 15.3. They exceedingly take from Chriſt's Kingly Office; whereas the Holy Ghoſt ſets up Chriſt a King in his Church, and a Law-giver, as equal to, ſo tranſcending all others that were before him: But that men in the Baptizing of Infants do undervalue the Kingly Office of Chriſt, in giving Laws to his people. That's clear in theſe two things.

Firſt in this, That they ſay it is a duty to Baptize Infants, and Anſwers the minde of Chriſt, and yet cannot ſhew a command from Chriſt; whereas the Apoſtle ſaith,Heb. 3.2, 3. Chriſt was as faithful in his houſe, as Moſes. And you know the faithfulneſſe of Moſes did conſiſt in this, That he gave Laws and Commands to the Iſraelites, to declare their duty: and layes nothing upon them as a duty, but what they had a command for. And it he gave them Laws for every thing they were to obſerve, and Chriſt was as faithful in his houſe as he; I will leave this to the judgement of you, whether or no that this doth not undervalue the Kingly Office of Chriſt, to ſay, that Baptizing of Infants is a duty that they owe to Chriſt; and yet can ſhew no command for it from Chriſt. Secondly, They undervalue the Kingly Office of Chriſt, in giving Laws to his Church in this; That they go about to perform (as they ſay) a duty to Chriſt, but can ſhew no command for it from Chriſt; but muſt uſe there own Art and Reaſon to make Chriſts Law ſtrong enough to hold it out to be a duty. And whether the joyning of mans Art, Policy, and Reaſon to the Laws of Chriſt, doth not exceedingly undervalue Chriſt, as though his Laws were not perfect enough for his people, I leave you to judge. And in ſo doing they do exceedingly take (as before I ſaid from the Prophetical, ſo here in the Kingly Office of Chriſt) that Honour and Preheminence from him, which the Holy Ghoſt gives to him, conſidered as come in the fleſh: And therefore ſo to do, denies Chriſt as come in the fleſh.

Secondly,

That which is no part of Righteouſneſſe, that as a duty to Chriſt, ought not to be obſerved.

But, the Baptizing of Infants is no part of Righteouſneſſe;

And therefore it ought not to be obſerved.

The Major Propoſition none can deny, I will prove the Minor, and that thus.

Whatſoever is conſidered as a part of Righteouſneſſe, was ſeen either in the Perſon or Practice of Jeſus Chriſt.

But neither in the Perſon nor Practice of Jeſus Chriſt, is the Baptizing of Infants ſeen or held forth.

Therefore it is not part of Righteouſneſſe.

And that whatſoever is a part of Righteouſneſſe, was ſeen in the Perſon or Practice of Jeſus Chriſt, is clear from this Scripture, Matth. 3.15. And Jeſus ſaid, Suffer it to be ſo: For thus is becometh us to fulfil all Righteouſneſſe. If all Righteouſneſſe, then there was no Righteouſneſſe but was confidered either in the Perſon or Practice of Chriſt. And that the Baptizing of Infants is not-held out in the Perſon or Practice of Chriſt, I leave to you to judge. He himſelf was not Baptized when he was an Infant, though he might plead the ſame priviledge as they do who ſay they are Children of Beleevers: Had it been a part of Righteouſneſſe, Chriſt would; nay, Chriſt ſhould have done it.

If you Object, and ſay, There was none to Baptize him before:

I Anſwer, Had it been a part of Righteouſneſſe, God in a providence would have provided one before, as well as then; for he was to fulfil all Righteouſneſſe. And for his Practice (though he Baptized not, but his Diſciples, John 4.2.) yet, in all their Baptizing where Chriſt was, you never hear that ever they Baptized any Infant, or gave any command for it; And therefore it is no part of Righteouſneſſe, and ought not to be done.

Thirdly,Dy. 3.

That which is not the Baptiſm of Chriſt, That ought not to be done.

But the Baptizing of Infants is not the Baptiſm of Chriſt;

And therefore ought not to be done (We are now ſpeaking of the Baptiſm of Chriſt, conſidered in an external way.)

And that the Baptiſm of Infants, is not the Baptiſm of Chriſt ſo conſidered; I prove thus.

Firſt, That which doth not Anſwer the Commiſſion of Chriſt, That is not the Baptiſm of Chriſt.

But, the Baptiſm of Infants doth not anſwer the Commiſſion of Chriſt;

Therefore it is not the Baptiſm of Chriſt.

That it doth not anſwer the Commiſſion of Chriſt, it is clear from the Commiſſion it ſelf, Matth. 28.19, 20. Mark 16.15, 16. Where you ſhall ſee theſe things in the Commiſſion, Go teach, Diſcipling, and Baptizing. And they that were to be Baptized, were ſuch as muſt firſt be Taught, and Diſcipled, and being Beleevers, muſt be Baptized, Mark 16.16.

And that an Infant in the firſt place, is capable to be Taught the myſtery of the Goſpel, and ſo to be taught as to be made a Diſciple of Chriſt, and a Beleever in Chriſt. It is clear that it cannot be; and therefore the Baptizing of them, doth not anſwer the Commiſſion of Chriſt.

Every man that profeſſes to act by a Commiſſion, moſt not onely do things becauſe there is not an expreſſ command againſt it: But if they obſerve any thing as a duty; they muſt have a command for it, in, and by it; or elſe it will come under the reproof of him that gives the Commiſſion; as thoſe come under the reproof of Chriſt (Colloſ •… i • ) who by the wiſdom of men, went to preſent a Will-worſhip to God. And ſo you ſee the Baptizing of Infants doth not anſwer the Commiſſion of Chriſt; And therefore it is none of Chriſts Baptiſm, and ought not to be done.

Secondly, Chriſts Baptiſm is a Baptiſm of Faith,Acts 8.37. Mark 16.16. Acts 8.12. Acts 2.38. Acts 28.8. and a Baptiſm of Repentance.

But, the Baptiſm of Infants cannot be a Baptiſm of Faith and a Baptiſm of Repentance.

Therefore it is not the Baptiſm of Chriſt; and ought not to be done.

Fourthly,

That which cauſeth inconveniences in the Church, That ought not to be done.

But, the Baptizing of Infants doth cauſe inconveniences in the Church;

Therefore it ought not to be done.

I muſt tell you (dear Friends) for this Argument, I borrowed it from them that oppoſe the thing, who laid down this as an Argument for Baptizing of Infants; and that thus:

That which cauſeth inconveniences in the Church, That ought not to be done:

But, (ſay they) the denying of Childrens Baptiſm, cauſeth inconveniences in the Church; And therefore it ought not to be 〈◊〉 .

And to prove this, they go to prove a Suppoſition by a Suppoſition; and that thus:

It will make the Children of Beleevers (ſay they) to be no other wayes then the Children of Heathens; and ſo they go about to prove a Conſequence by a Conſequence; which is but 〈…〉 upon.

But that the Baptizing of Infants doth cauſe inconvenience in the Church, I will prove from Scripture: and that thus;

That which doth not onely, preſent one, but make one a Member of a Church; before being called of God, That is inconvenient:

But, the Baptizing of Infants makes them Members of their Church, before they are called of God; And therefore it is inconvenient, and contrary to theſe Scriptures, 1 Cor. 1.1. and 2 Cor. 1.1.

Secondly,

That which intails mercies and priviledges to generation, which alone is to be intail'd upon men in reference to regeneration, That is inconvenient.

But the Baptizing of Infants, doth intail mercies and priviledges to them in reference to generation, and not regeneration; And therefore it is inconvenient, and contrary to this Scripture, John 3.5. Gal. 3.9. with many other places, as 2 Cor. 1.1. where he doth declare that all thoſe that were in the Church of Chriſt, and impriviledged with the Ordinances of Chriſt, they were fanctified by Chriſt.

Thirdly, That which cauſeth a Separation, and diſtraction in Chriſts conjunction; Thats inconvenient.

But, the Baptizing of Infants, doth make a Separation, and diſtraction in Chriſts conjunction; And therefore it is inconvenient.

By Chriſts conjunction, I mean the oneneſſe that is between the ground that Chriſt layes down for men to be Baptized, and the ground he layes down for men to break Bread; which is one and the ſame thing: He that Beleeves, and knows, and diſcerns Chriſt, he is to be Baptized, Acts 8.37. And he that doth ſo, is to break Bread, in remembrance of Chriſt, 1 Cor. 11.

Now, thoſe that plead ſo much for the Baptizing of Infants, by the ſame ground they would Baptize Infants upon, they will not admit them nor others to break Bread; And therefore as Chriſts ground is one, theirs is two: And under that conſideration, they make a Separation in that which Chriſt makes a oneneſſe; and that is inconvenient in the Church of Chriſt, and ought not to be done.

Fifthly, That which doth directly croſſe the proceedings in the time of the Law, and in the time of the Goſpel. That ought not to be done.

But, the Baptizing of Infants, doth directly croſſe the proceedings in the time of the Law, and in the time of the Goſpel; And therefore it ought not to be done.

By that, I mean, That no man in the time of the Law, and in the time of the Goſpel was to do any thing by the vertue of a Right,Iſai. 8.20. without a Rule; But whatſoever they did as a Duty, it was to anſwer a Rule. Had Abraham been circumciſed by the vertue of a Right, as he was a Beleever, and not by the vertue of a Rule; then Lot might have pleaded for the ſame priviledge, for he was a Beleever as well as Abraham; yet God did not make choice of Lot, but of Abraham. And then, Iſhmael ſhould not have been circumciſed, but onely Iſaa • ; But though Iſhmael was a ſon of the fleſh, and caſt out by God, and not a Beleever in God; yet he muſt be circumciſed: And therefore this was not by the vertue of a Right, but by the vertue of a Rule.

The ſame thing alſo was in the time of the Goſpel, where it is clearly diſcovered that Chriſt owns nothing as a Duty, but as it anſwers a Law; and they were to do nothing pleading a Right, without a Rule; but to do all things by the vertue of a Rule: Therefore under that conſideration, Will-worſhip was condemned.

Now if there be any rule, or any command in the Scripture for Infants to be Baptized, I deſire they would ſhew it: Here is the Word of Truth, which juſtifies all things ſutable to it ſelf; and owns nothing elſe to be a Truth. And I do exceedingly wonder that any men ſhould go about to plead for a thing by the vertue of a Right, without a Rule.

I have much more to ſay to you in this thing, had I time and ſtrength: But, I hope theſe five grounds that I have here laid down, will clearly diſcover to you, That Infants ought not to be Baptized.

I am not here now to prove to you the Baptizing of Beleevers; That's not the controverſie in hand, though a thing clear by Scripture; and that which I ſhould be glad if I had an occaſion to ſpeak of. Not onely to ſpeak of Baptiſm in the Letter, but Baptiſm in the Spirit, which was the myſtry of the Goſpel, and the glorious excellency of Chriſt in the Spirit, held out in the Adminiſtrations of Chriſt conſidered in the fleſh; which Adminiſtrations in the fleſh, are as ſo many ſignes to declare the Myſtery of the Spirit; though I know none can underſtand it, but they that do injoy it; for none can unletter the Letter, but the Spirit: But I ceaſe from that, and ceaſe giving you any further Reaſons (at this time) to prove that which we were to have proved in Publike, had we had liberty; which was, That Infants ought not to be Baptized.

But I leave them and you ſo to the Truth; deſiring that we may all be taught by the Truth; and ſweetly made one in the Truth; and carried out from thence, to walk up in an acknowledgement of the Truth, ſutable to the Rules of it Self.

FINIS.