The Postscript.

Shewing that Infant-baptism is contrary to the Command of Christ.

REceiving lately in Writing a Proposition from a Minister of the Church of England, to which I sent him certain Argu∣ments, to prove what is denied in the said Proposition; I shall here offer the same to Consideration. The Proposition is this,

Arg. 1.
• If Infant-baptism be not contrary to the Com∣mand of Christ, then it is of divine Institution, *
• But Infant-baptism is not of divine Institution,
• Ergo, Infant-baptism is contrary to the Command of Christ.
• The Major is true, because there is only one Baptism instituted by Christ. The Minor is true, because no man can shew any divine In∣stitution of Infant-baptism.

Arg. 2.
• If infant-baptism be not contrary to the Com∣mand of Christ, then it agrees with Christs Com∣mission * for the perpetuity of Baptism, Mat. 28. 19.
• But Infant-baptism is not agreeable to the Commission from the perpetuity of Baptism, Mat. 28. 19.
• Ergo, Infant-baptism is contrary to the Command of Christ.

The Major is true, because Christ commanded nothing contrary to his own Commission. The Minor is true, sith no man can shew any Agreement between the Commission and Infant-baptism.

Arg. 3.
• If infant baptism be not contrary to the Com∣mand of Christ, then it is agreeable to the practice * of the Apostolical Churches,
• But infant-baptism is not agreeable to the pra∣ctice of the Apostolical Churches.
• Ergo, Infant-baptism is contrary to the Command of Christ.

The Major i• true, because the Apostolical Church did observe allPage  42that Christ commanded in the case of baptism. The Minor is true, because no man can shew, the Apostolical churches did baptize so much as one Infant.

Arg. 4.
• If infant-baptism be not contrary to the Com∣mand * of Christ, then it is the baptism of Repentance for Remission of sin.
• But infant-baptism is not the baptism of repent∣ance for remission of sins;
• Ergo, Infant-baptism is contrary to the Command of Christ.

The Major is true, because christ commanded no baptism, but the baptism of repentance for Remission of sins, Acts 2. 38. and Eph. 4. 5. The Minor is true, because Infants have all the Remission needful in Infancy, without repentance, else they can have no Remission.

Arg. 5.
• That which hath in a great measure, and natu∣rally * tends wholly to make void the baptism com∣manded by Christ, is contrary to the Command of Christ.
• But infant-baptism hath in a great measure, and naturally tends wholly to make void the baptism commanded by Christ.
• Ergo, infant-baptism is contrary to the Command of Christ.

The Major is true, because Christ commands nothing to make void his own command. The Minor is true, for where Infant-baptism is generally rcceived, there believers baptism ceaseth.

Arg. 6.
• If infant-baptism be as unreasonable, as to ba∣ptise * persons when they are asleep or dead, then it is contrary to the Command of Christ.
• But infant-baptism is as unreasonable as to baptize persons when they are asleep or dead.
• Ergo, Infant-baptism is contrary to the command of Christ.

The Major is true, because Christ commanded nothing that is unreasonable, I mean, that which is really so according to truth, and not in mans judgement only. The Minor is true, first becaufe those who baptize Infant• do usually do it when they are a•leep; Page  43 Secondly, because the Grounds usually insisted on for infant∣ba∣ptism, will as well justifie the baptizing Persons asleep or dead; • mean, such only as have known and believed in the Lord Jesus; yea, the Scripture may seem (according to Interpreters, to hint some such thing to have been done in the Christian Church, and he not approve it) but no such intimation touching any Infant.

Arg. 7.
• That practice which renders the practice of Christ and his true followers, (who were * baptized in Rivers, or much water) super∣fluous or ridiculous, and which agreeth not with the word baptize, when used in the New Testament to express the Act done in that Ordinance, is contrary to the Command of Christ.
• But the sprinkling of Infants now used by the Presbyterians, renders the practice of Christ and his true followers, (who were baptized in Rivers or much water) supersluous or ridiculous, and agreeth not with the signification of the word Baptize, when used to express (according to the New Testament) the Act done in that Ordinance.
• Ergi, Infant-baptism is contrary to the command of Christ.

T•e Major is evident, because Christ would command nothing to reflect dishonour upon his own practice,

The Minor is true, because if sprinkling a little water on the face only be su•ficient, then immersion or dipping in the River must needs be superfluous, &c. neither can the word Baptize and Rantize, with any equity of speech or good sence, be used to ezpress the same action.

Thus, though we justly refuse infant-baptism, because no man can prove it commanded by Christ, yet that we may more effectu∣ally perswade our Countreymen, to admit of the restoration of this Ordinance to pristine integrity, we have offered these Arguments to shew how contrary to Christs Command is that darling Traditi∣on os Pedobaptism.