A DECLARATION CONCERNING THE public DISPUTE WHICH Should have been in the public Meeting-House of Alderman-Bury, the 3d. of this instant month of December; Concerning Jnfants-Baptisme.  
Together, with some of the Arguments which should then have been propounded and urged by some of those that are falsely called Anabaptists, which should then have disputed.  
Viz. By 

BENJAMIN cox.  
HANSERD KNOLLYS.  
WILLIAM KIFFEN, &c.    
Published for the satisfaction of those that desire information  2 COR. 10.3.4, 5. 
For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds.  
LONDON, Printed in the Year, 1645.   

A Declaration, concerning the public Dispute, which should have been in the public Meeting House of Alderman-Bury, the 3. of of this instant December.  
A Merchant of this City, taking knowledge of different doctrines and Administrations of baptism, publicly held forth both in preaching and practise; some doubts did arise in his mind, which of the said Doctrines and Administrations was according to the will of God; who being desirous to try all things, and hold fast that which is good; preached the Scriptures daily, and upon examination found, The doctrine and administration of baptism touching Believers, who make profession of faith, and manifest the fruits of repentance, to be more agreeable to the Scriptures, then the doctrine and administration of baptism touching the Infants of Believers, so far forth as he could discern. Yet because he would not lean to his own understanding, he earnestly desired, and at length( after much pains and entreaties) obtained a conference and private disputation between us, and Mr. Callamy, and some of his Brethren, at the Merchants own house( unto which were admitted divers of his friends) and some strangers,) that he might hear both parties face to face, maintain their own doctrine and practise about baptism, for his own and his wives satisfaction( being great with child) at the end of which private dispute, the Merchant and divers others present, not having received satisfaction, touching the lawfulness of baptizing the Infants of Believers; There was appointed another day for dispute at Mr. Mascals house, and Mr. Callamy undertook to prove, That some of the Infants of Believers ought to be baptized. But the multitudes of people that came thither, hindered that dispute; for we could not get in to dispute, for the crowd of the people; whereupon we all agreed, to crave leave of the civill Magistrate, to have liberty to dispute in some public place.  
And it is not unknown to many in this City, That a public dispute touching the lawfulness of paedobaptism, between us, and Mr. Callam●, Mr. Cranford, with some others, was agreed upon; and having first obtained leave of the Lord mayor, by the request of three Common council men( whom we jointly entreated to move his lordship in all our Names) we privately consulted together, at Mr. Callamy's house, how we might manage that public dispute, to the glory of God; and the satisfaction of the people: And we mutually agreed to hold that public Disputation, in the Parish Church( as men call it) of Alderman-bury, upon the third day of this instant December, from nine a clock in the morning, until three a clock in the Afternoon: There should have been six on each party, whereof two were to be appointed Moderators: One of the Moderators was to begin with prayer, and the other to conclude with prayer, after the Dispute was ended: Also both parties choose. Mr. hid to be our Notary, whom we all desired, that( prayer being ended) before we begun to dispute, he would read this following Agreement in the ears of all the people there present.  

The Agreement.  
IT is agreed on both sides, that this Disputation shall contiune for six houres; they that begin to dispute, shall dispute for two houres, and then the contrary party for two houres more; and then the first party shall dispute again the fifth hour, and the other party the sixth hour; with this proviso, that if any do desire liberty to exceed the time allotted, the same liberty shall be granted to the other side, not exceeding half an hour.  
It is likewise agreed, that at the end of each dispute, the Moderator on that party that disputes, shall faithfully and conscientiously give the result, both of the Arguments and the Answers.  
Its likewise agreed, that the Disputation shall be logical, and each side shall endeavour to make his answers as short as he can possibly.  
it is also much desired by both parties, that there be no distarbance offered by any one whatsoever, either by hissing, or humming, or laughing, or talking.  
It is likewise professed, that both sides are willing to declare, and will as occasion shall serve, declare ingenuo●sly what they hold, according as they shall be desired in the disputation about the subject-matter of the dispute.  
And lastly, both parties do seriously and solemnly profess, that they come hither with a resolution to give or receive light, according as God shall offer it; and not to dispute for Vistory, but truth.  
The Question to be disputed this day is;  
Whether the Infants of believing Parents ought to be baptized, or no?  
Mr. Callamy is to prove, That all or some Infants of Believing Parents, ought to be baptized.  
And the other parties are to prove; That no Infants ought to be baptized.   
But the Evening before the day agreed upon for that public Dispute, some of us passing over the Exchange, saw an Order published by the Lord mayor, to this effect;  

That his Lordship thought fit upon serious consideration, for prevention of the inconveniencies that might happen thereby, to forbid the same Meeting and Disputation, upon that day, or at any other time, in a public way; before his Lordship shall receive the pleasures of the Honourable H uses of Parliament touching the same; which with all co●veniency, his Lordship will endeavour to know, lest otherwise there might be hazard of the disturbance of the public Peace.   
Whereupon, we( who are falsely called Anabaptists) being as ready to obey our Civill Magistrates, as to profess our subjection to his Authority in all lawful commands;[ Whatever is preached or printed of us by any to the contrary; and whosoever have, or shall accuse us, either to the Magistrates, or to the Common people, that we will not obey Authority, are false accusers of the B ethren; and we hope, that both the Magistrates, and the People have found them liars, and will find them so to be still, so often as just occasion shall be offered to manifest our willing and loyal subjection to the Magistrates Civill Authority] we were constrained in obedience to his Lordships lawful power, to forbear that intended and earnestly desired Disputation, and wait until Mr. Callamy and his Brethren obtain leave from Authority, to have liberty of a public Dispute with us and our Brethren, which we hope the Lord mayor will with all conveniency endeavour, according to his Lordships promise and engagement; hoping also, that when they have said what they can by way of Argument, for their doctrine and practise, touching the Baptizing of the Infants of believers, we shall obtain the like equal liberty, both from the Civill Magistrates, and themselves, as publicly to say what we can from the Scripture of truth, for our doctrine and practise, touching the baptizing of believers; That they who shall hear our public Disputations, may try all things, and hold fast that which is good. But, lest that some reports of us or our Brethren, which have been given out,( by whom we know not) nay, we care not, with respect to ourselves; for, we have learned to pass through good and evil reports, through the strength of Christ) yet lest, we say, those reports coming to the ear of Authority, should hinder them from granting this so much desired liberty of public Dispute, we are forced to make this short apology. We will onely at this time make mention of two Reports amongst others, which we conceive are pertinent to the matter; to wit,  
First, it was reported as if we intended to manage that Dispute with our Swords, Clubs and Staves.  
Secondly, that if Mr. Callamy escaped with his life, it would be well.  
And here we think meet; First, to declare how we came to get some Hinc of these two base and scandalous reports. We could not but take notice of the Reason expressed by the Lord mayor, why his Lordship thought fit to prohibit our public Dispute;( after he had granted that favour) to wit, The hazard of the disturbance of the public Peace: And, for the prevention of the inconveniences that may happ●n thereby. Whereupon, we went to Mr. Callamy, and asked him, If he knew what occasioned the Lord mayor to fear the disturbance of the Peace by such a Disputation, especially seeing we had his Lordships leave, and had agreed to manage it in so peaceable a manner. Mr. Callamy  told us, That it was reported at the Lord Majors Table by some body( be knew not whom) that an Anabaptist, but he knew not who, said that he would bring his sword with him to the Dispute, or he would not come without his sword; or words to that purpose: And Mr. Callamy also  told us, That a woman  told him, that some( no body knows who) should say, That if the public Dispute h●ld, Mr. Callamy would scarce escape with his life: And other strange reports are whispered touching that Dispute, as if we were the cause of the Lord Majors forbidding of it; when as we were, and still are most desirous to have liberty to dispute publicly with Mr. Callamy, and his Brethren. Now, as concerning those two Reports before mentioned, we do abhor the thoughts of such a thing; as to manage our Dispute with any other sword, then the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God; For, the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God, to the pulling down of strong holds. And our agreement may give a sufficient testimony of the contra y, especially in these words, it is much desired by both parties, that there be no disturbance offered by any one whatsoever, &c.  
And truly, we cannot but marvel, that either the Magistrates, or Inhabitants of this City,( who have had so much experience of the peaceable conversation of us, and our Brethren, called Anabaptists) should at any time hear such reports of us, without a just reproof to those that do bring them; yea, let any rational man judge, whether we, who think it an unreasonable thing, that we should be beaten with Club-law instead of Arguments, should go about to do that to others, which we would not have them to do to us. And, as for that other Report, concerning, Mr. Callamy, It appeared to us, that Mr. Callamy neither feared, nor apprehended any such danger; for, he professed himself to be very willing and desirous that the Dispute should have held, and  told us, he was much grieved that it was put off, and that he went to the Lord mayor, and desired his Lordship not to forbid it, but could not prevail with his Honour; onely the Lord mayor promised Mr. Callamy to endeavour to know the pleasure of the honourable Houses of Parliament about it: And, Mr. Callamy  told us, That Mr. Recorder would take a fit opportunity to move the honourable house of Commons concerning it; that so the Lord mayor might know the pleasure of both the honourable Houses of Parliament: And, for as much as these reports, with divers others, are dispersed, both in the City, and also in the Army, we are constrained to publish to the view of the world, some of the Arguments which we intended to have propounded to Mr. Callamy and his Brethren at that public Dispute; which were all the Swords and Clubs, or weapons, with which we intended to pull down that strong hold of christian. That part of the Question which we were to maintain against Mr. Callamy and his Brethren was, That no Infants ought to be baptized.   

No Jnfants ought to be baptized.  
IF onely Believers themselves ought to be baptized, then none of their Infants: But onely Believers themselves ought to be baptized: Ergo, none of the 〈…〉 nts, &c. That Believers onely ought to be baptized, we thus prove: Such persons as we read in the Scripture of truth, John, Christs Disciples and Apostles administered Baptism unto, such onely ought we to administer baptism unto; But we read in the Scripture of truth, that John, Christs Disciples, and Apostles, administered baptism to such of the Jews only as repented, and to such of the Gentiles only as believed, Ergo, Such only ought we to administer Baptism unto, who do believe and repent. That John administered baptism to such onely as repented, appears both by his doctrine and practise; his doctrine you may read, mat. 3.1, 2. and Acts 19.4, 5. And Iohns practise was suitable to his doctrine, Matth. 3.5, 6. and Luke 3.3.12, 13, 16, 18. And when some came to Iohns baptism, who thought that they might have been baptized, because they were the children of Abraham; John said unto them, Bring forth fruit meet for repentance; and, think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our Father, Matth. 3.7, 8. Giving them thereby to understand, that they must not have this gospel Ordinance of baptism administered unto them( though they were the children of Abraham) until they did actually repent, Acts 2.38. as if he had said, What though you be the fleshly seed of your believing Father Abraham, must you therefore be baptized before you repent? think not so, Hereupon the Pharisees rejected the counsel of God against themselves, not being baptized of him, Luke 7, 29, 30. For, they are not all Israel which are of Israel; neither because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children; that is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted for the seed, Rom. 9.6, 7, 8. and Gal. 3.26, 27, 29. That Christs Disciples, and Apostles did administer baptism unto such onely as believed and repented, also appears by their doctrine and practise: Their doctrine you may read, Acts 2.38. Acts 8.35, 36, 37. Act 16.30, 31, 32, 33. Also their practise was according to their doctrine, both in Judea, Acts 2.41. and in San●… ria. Acts 8.12. Also in caesarea, Acts 10.44, 47, 48. and in Macedonia, Acts 16.32, 33, 34. and in Achaia, Acts 18.8. and in Asia the less, Acts 19.1, 3, 4, 5. And whereso●… er there is mention made in the Scripture of their administration 〈◇〉 baptism, it was according to their doctrine of baptism, and both 〈◇〉 doctrine and practise was according to the Commission and ●… tion of Christ; Mat. 28.19. Make 〈…〉 Nations, baptizing them; to wit, who are made Disciples by preaching. Joh. 4.1, 2. so expounds {αβγδ} Disciple ye, {αβγδ} he made and baptized Disciples. Also mark 1●. 15, 16. declares what our Saviour intended by the word Disciples, to wit, believers. He that believeth the gospel preached unto him, and is baptized, shall be saved. Thus the unprejudiced Reader may plainly perceive, that the harmony of Scriptures do witness, that believers themselves( and not their Infants) ought to be baptized, according to the doctrine and practise of John the Baptist, the Disciples and Apostles of Christ, also according to the institution of baptism by our blessed Saviour.  
Every administration of baptism, that differeth essentially from the doctrine of baptism taught by Christ, his Disciples, and Apostles, is unlawful; But your administration of christian differeth essentially from the doctrine of baptism, &c. Ergo, your administration of christian is unlawful. That your administration of christian differeth essentially from the doctrine of baptism taught by Christ, his Disciples and Apostles, we thus prove.  
Whatsoever administration of baptism differeth from the doctrine of baptism, in respect of the subject-matter, or form, differeth essentially; But your administration of christian differeth from the doctrine of baptism, in respect of the subject-matter, and in regard of your form; Ergo, It differeth essentially. The subject matter of baptism, according to the doctrine of Christ, Matth. 28.19. compared with John 4.1, 2. are such men and women as are made Disciples, ( viz) believers, by preaching, Mark 16.15, 16. The subject matter of your baptism, are the Infants of your Parishioners, whom you dream are born Christians, and are children of believers, because their Parents are members of Alderman-Bury Church, or some other Parish Church: The subject matter of baptism, according to the doctrine of the Disciples and Apostles of Christ, Acts 2.38. compared with Acts 8.12.35, 36, 37. and Acts 19.4, 5. are such men and women as actually repent and believe. And all the Ministers of England, have with one consent acknowledged this truth; witness against them, that passage in their Church-Catechisme, where they used to ask their Communicants, What is required of persons to be baptized? and taught them th● answer; to wit, Repentance, whereby they forsake sin,[ that ●… tuall repentance] and faith, whereby they steadfastly believe the promises of God,[ which is faith that comes by hearing the word] And then they ask them another Question, wherein they all confess, that Infants cannot perform that which is required, and Quere, Why then are Infants Baptized? to which they taught them an answer, whereof, both themselves and their people are ashamed: And now they have invented another, whereof they will in time be more ashamed; to wit, The Infants of believers are Christians, and faderally holy before they be baptized, and therefore to be baptized; And these are the subject matter of your baptism; to wit, Infants born in sin, and children of wrath, who neither do actually believe nor repent, whom you say must be baptized, though there be no warrant in the word of God for such an administration. The form or manner of baptism, according to the doctrine of Christ, his Disciples, and Apostles, is such a dipping, or washing of the person baptized in or with water, as holdeth forth their communion with Christ in his Death, burial, and Resurrection, as appears by these Scriptures, Matth. 28.19. Acts 8 38. Heb. 10.22. Rom. 6.3, 4. Col. 2.12. 1 Cor. 15.29. But your Babe-Baptisme is administered after the invention of men, by sprinkling their faces with water, not dipping or washing their bodies in water; which we affirm is to Rantize, and not to Baptize. The Greek word {αβγδ}, signifieth to dip, or wash, but never to sprinkl, 2 Kings 5.14. {αβγδ} Et wersit se in lord●ne s●pties. And he dipped himself seven times in Jordane. So the Septuagint. Nonnus paraphrasis in John, pag. 8. lin. 12. {αβγδ}. Et tu our imm●… gas, unde equâ hominem munaificas. Also Vossius in his Dispute, Thes. 1. Hist. Theolog. {αβγδ} Notat mergere, and there he saith, it is more then {αβγδ} and less then {αβγδ}. And our Reasons why baptism ought to be thus administered by dipping or washing the body in water, are these; to wit, 

1. Because, It was administered in much water; Joh. 8.23.  
2. Because, It must represent a death, burial, and resurrection; Rom. 6.34. 1 Cor. 15.29. Col. 2.12.  
3. Because, The Parties baptized are to go into the water; Matth. 3.13.16. and Acts 8.38, 39.    
Thus the judicious Reader( if not prejudiced) may plainly perceive, That your administration of Infant baptism, differeth essentially from the doctrine of baptism which was taught by Christ, his Disciples, and Apostles; Ergo, unlawful. And your own mouths and doctrine to your communicants have born witness against yourselves; in that you have taught your people, that truth which the Scriptures bear witness of: viz. That actual repentance and faith, is required in persons to be baptized: And you and all your Brethren have with one mouth confessed, that Infants cannot perform that which is required. And yet you go about to invent a reason why they should be baptized; contrary to Scripture, and your own confession; Christs doctrine, and your own.  
That religious worship, for which there is no command nor example in the Scripture of truth, is Will-worship, and unlawful. But your Infant baptism is a religious worship, for which there is no command, nor any example, written in the Scripture of truth; Ergo, Your Infant baptism is Will-worship, and unlawful.  
Here Mr. Callamy and his brethren are put hard to it, 
The Reader may here take notice, that these distinctions were given us by Mr. call. and M. Porter, at our private Dispute at Mr. Priggs.  and know not how to give a satisfying answer, to either of the propositions of this syllogism. Some of his Brethren being persuaded in their hearts, that the mayor is a truth; dare not deny it, but would answer to the Minor. Mr. Callamy not knowing how to avoid the truth of the Minor, would answer to the mayor. And when the light of truth, that is in both the mayor and Minor, did so shine forth, that Mr. call. and his Brethren could not deny either proposition, yet they did distinguish upon both propositions, and would grant neither, although true; And they thus distinguish. Mr. Porter saith, Though there be no express command nor example written in the Scripture to baptize Infants, yet there is an implicit command; which distinction was in our Dispute thus taken away. If there be any command at all to baptize Infants, it is written either in the Old or New Testament; But there is no command at all to baptize Infants, neither express, nor implied, written in the Old or New Testament; Ergo. And we say further, that seeing secret things belong to God, and things that are revealed belong to us and to our children. Let the indifferent Reader judge, how such an un-written Tradition as Infant baptism is( which is no where revealed either in the Old or New Testament) can belong to us and our children. But Mr. call. not liking his Brothers distinction, and answer to our Minor proposition; He gave us this answer to our mayor: which in his own words we will set down. I would deny their mayor, For if a thing by just consequence, by necessary consequence, what ever it be, proved out of the Scripture by necessary consequence; Though there be no command, nor no example, yet it is Scripture, as much as if there was command or example. Although we grant, That the necessary consequences which the Apostles and Prophets( who were inspired by the holy Spirit of God) did deduct from the Scriptures of the Old Testament, and left recorded in the New Testament, are Scripture; and written for our instruction: Yet we do deny that the consequences, which Mr. call. or his Brethren( being men subject to like infirmity as ourselves, and may err) do deduct from Scriptures[ not by divine inspiration, but by natural or artificial logic] which Mr. call. calleth, necessary consequences, are Scripture: And the reason of our denying of such necessary consequences to be Scripture, is;  
Because, They are no where written in the Scripture of Truth, but brings in that Popish tenant of Non-written Verity; and so ushers in all Popish Innovations; as Prelacy, Common-prayer-book, Ceremonies, &c. and therefore is unsound, absurd, and sinful: Which we make good by this syllogism.  
Every tenant, that brought in Prelacy, Common-prayer-book, and all Popish ceremonies, hath proved to be unsound, absurd, and sinful, and is not now once to be name( without an Odium) by any of the Teachers of Gods people. But this, to wit, That necessary consequences( as Mr. call. calls them) are Scripture, is one of those tenants that brought in Prelacy; &c. Ergo.  
This was the tenant by which the Parish Ministers subjected their people to Prelacy and bound their consciences by their necessary consequences. They used thus to argue from; Rom. 13.1, 2. Every soul ought to be subject to the higher Powers; But the Archbishops and Lord Bishops are higher powers, Ergo, Every soul ought to be subject to the Archbishops& Lord Bishops. By this tenant also, they brought the people to worship God by the Common-prayer-book; and proved it lawful by their necessary consequences.  
They used thus to argue; from, Matth. 6.9. If a set form of prayer be lawful, then, the Common-prayer-book is lawful; But a set form of prayer is lawful; Ergo, It follows by necessary consequence, That the Common-prayer-book is lawful. And by this tenant they brought their people to submit to all their Popish Ceremonies, viz. Surplice, cross in baptism, and bowing at the Name of Jesus, &c.  
They used thus to argue from, 1 Cor. 14.40. All things in the Church ought to be done decently and in Order: But it is very decent to wear a Surplice, Cope, and Hood, to sign the Infant with the cross in baptism, and to bow at the naming of Jesus, and to kneel at the receiving of the Sacrament; also the uniformity of Pews in the Church, and the setting of the Table Altar-wise, and railing it in; is both very decent and orderly: Ergo, All these ceremonies ought to be in the Church.  
Thus any who will not shut their eyes against the light, may clearly see, that mens necessary consequences, have ushered in all Popish Innovations, and thereby the Parish Ministers have subjected their Parishioners consciences, unto their own Traditions; and have greatly endangered the damnation of many of their Parishioners souls thereby, whilst they have taught for doctrine the commandements of men. And we dare not but tell the people, that if they will believe Mr. call. and his brethren, that their necessary consequences are Scripture,& whatsoever they can prove by their necessary consequence from the Scripture, binds their consciences, and they ought to obey and practise whatsoever they so teach, though there be no command nor example in the Scripture for the same: They will still be brought into as great an observance of the traditions of men, under the Classical Presbytery, as ever they were under Lordly Episcopacy. And we dare affirm and maintain( if we may have liberty of public Dispute with them by the leave of Authority) that the Presbyters have nothing else persuade the people to subject their consciences unto their synodical and classical Authority, their new-devised-parish-Church-worship their Rantizing of the Babes of their Parish Believers,& all the rest of their old and new traditions, but such necessary consequences: For we dare say, the Presbyters( whensoever we shall dispute with them) will be forced to confess; that there is no command nor example written in the Scripture of Truth, for all these things: But( yet, it is likely they will say) that they can prove all these by necessary consequences from the Scripture, and these necessary consequences are Scripture, and bind the consciences of their Parishioners to observe them. The time was, when Mr. call. and his Brethren did think, that this was a good Argument against the cross in baptism, because there was no command nor example for it in the Scripture; and it was an adding to the Word, to bring in such a thing, and men could not make it an action of faith, because they have no warrant for it in the Word of God, and therefore it was sin. This was a good Argument against the Bishops. Whatsoever is not 〈◇〉 Faith, is sin. Whatsoever we have no command nor example for written in the Scripture of Truth, we have no Faith for; Ergo, Was it a sin to sign a child in the fore-head with a cross in the Bishops time? because there is no Word of God for it; And is it not a sin now in the Presbyters, to sprinkle a little water upon a childes fore-head or face, and say; I baptize thee in the Name, &c. seeing they confess there is no Word of God for it, but their own necessary consequences?  
That which doth deny Christ to be come in the flesh, ought not to be done:  
But the Baptizing of Infants doth deny Christ to be come in the flesh;  
Therefore ought it not to be done.  
We know that no man can deny the mayor, which is so clearly confirmed, 1 John 4.3. with divers other places.  
We will prove the Minor, That baptizing of Infants doth deny Christ to be come in the flesh.  
That which doth take from Christ that which the Holy Spirit gives to Christ, considered come in the flesh; That denies Christ come in the flesh.  
But the baptizing of Infants doth take from Christ that which the Holy Spirit gives to Christ, considered come in the flesh:  
Therefore it denies Christ come in the flesh.  
And for the proof of this, we shall declare to you what we mean by that which the Holy Spirit gives to Christ considered come in the flesh.  
The Holy Spirit gives to Christ a pre-eminence above all others that were before him in his prophetical and Kingly Office. 
Col. 1.13. Phil. 2.9.   
In his prophetical Office, 
Joh. 6.63. Mat. 11.9. Luk. 24.19  that neither Moses not the Proph were to be compared with him, but far inferior to him, and his Office; So inferior, that he was not to be expounded by them; but in giving out his mind considered come in the flesh, he was to expound and unfold them. But now men in their going about to pled for the baptizing of Infants, do exceedingly undervalue Christ's prophetical Office in this, that they make the old Testament expound the new; 
Mat. 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( we 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 Christs mind, 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. Rev. 15.3.  They exceedingly take from Christs Kingly Office; whereas, the Holy Spirit 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,, 
Heb. 3.2, 3.  That they say, it is a duty to Baptize Infants, and Answers the mind of Christ, and yet cannot show a command from Christ; whereas the Apostle saith, Christ was as faithful in his house, as Moses. And you know the faithfulness of Moses did consist in this, That he gave Laws and Commands to the Israelites, to declare their duty; and lays nothing upon them as a duty, but what they had a command for. And seeing he gave them Laws for every thing they were to observe, and if Christ was as faithful in his house as he; we will leave this to the judgement of the wise, 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 show 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 show no command for it from Christ; but must use their own Art and Reason to make Christs Law strong enough to hold it out to be a duty. And whether the joining 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, we leave the wise to judge. And in so doing they do exceedingly take( as before we said from the prophetical, 〈◇〉 here in the Kingly Office of Christ) that Honour and pre-eminency from him, which the Holy Spirit gives to him, considered as come in the flesh: And therefore so to do, denies Christ as come in the flesh.  
That which is no part of righteousness, ought not to be observed: But the baptizing of Infants is no part of righteousness. And therefore it ought not to be observed.  
The mayor Proposition none can deny: I will prove the Minor, and that thus:  
Whatsoever is considered as a part of righteousness, was seen either in the person or practise of Jesus Christ.  
But neither in the person nor practise of Jesus Christ, is the baptizing of Infants seen or held forth:  
Therefore it is no part of righteousness.  
And that whatsoever is a part of righteousness, was seen in the person or practise of Jesus Christ, is clear from this Scripture, Matth. 3.15. And Iesus said, suffer it be so: for thus is to becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. If all righteousness, then there was no righteousness but was considered either in the person or practise of Christ. And that the Baptizing of Infants is not held out in the person or practise of Christ; We leave the wise to judge. He himself was not baptized when he was an Infant, though he might plead the same privilege as they do, who say they are children of believers: Had it been a part of righteousness, Christ would, nay, Christ should have done it.  
If you Object, and say, There was none to baptize him before.  
We answer, had it been a part of righteousness, God in a providence would have provided one before, as well as then; for he was to fulfil all righteousness. And for his practise( though he baptized not, but his Disciples, joh. 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 righteousness, and ought not to be done.  
Those onely ought to be baptized, who are accounted the seed of ABRAHAM, either after the flesh, or according to the Faith. But none of the Infants of Believing Gentiles, are accounted the seed of ABRAHAM, either after the flesh, or according to the Faith; Ergo, they ought not to be baptized.  
The mayor proposition Mr. call. and his Brethren will not deny; Because, It is their own doctrine, and one of their principles, whereby they would prove; That the Infants of Believers ought to be baptized: We do but borrow their own weapon, to give their Infant baptism its deadly wound.  
The Assumption, to wit, that none of the Infants of Believing Gentiles, are acaccounted the seed of ABRAHAM, either after the flesh, or according to the Faith, we thus prove.  
First, Because the Jews or Israelites onely, and not any of the Gentiles, are counted the seed of ABRAHAM after the flesh; to wit, by natural generation or off-spring: So then none of the Infants of Believing Gentiles, are accounted for the fleshly seed of ABRAHAM.  
Secondly, Because Believers onely themselves, and not their Infants, are accounted the spiritual seed of ABRAHAM, or his seed according to the Faith, Gal. 3.29. If you be Christs, then you are ABRAHAMS seed, and heires according to the promise. And ABRAHAM is called, Rom. 4.12. The father of all them that believe. But it is no where said in Scripture, that ABRAHAM is the father of all their children too. Nay, the contrary is witnessed by the Apostle Paul, Rom. 9.6, 7, 8, 9. They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.  
We conceive, that this Scripture doth expound, Gen. 17. God made an everlasting covenant of Grace with ABRAHAM and his seed. Now the Scriptures declare, that ABRAHAM had two kindes of seed; the one born after the flesh, the other born after the Spirit, Gal. 4.29. The question is, who are counted for Abrahams seed according to the covenant of Grace?  
We answer, not ishmael, nor any one born after the flesh, but Isaas, and every one born after the spirit. And the Apostle delivers this, as the mind of God, Rom. 9.7, 8. Neither because they are the seed of ABRAHAM, are they all children; but in Isaac shall thy seed be called: That is, saith the Apostle, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of GOD; but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. Also Paul further clears this truth, in the 4. chapped. to the Gal. vers. 22. to the end.  
For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a Bondwoman, the other by a free-woman; But he who was of the bondwoman[ to wit, Ishmael] was born after the flesh; but he of the free-woman[ to wit, Isaas] was by promise; which things are an Allegory: For these are the two Covenants &c. vers. 24. So that the Apostle witnesseth, that there are two Covenants, which GOD made with ABRAHAM and his seed; to wit, a covenant of works with Abrahams fleshly seed, and a covenant of Grace with Abrahams spiritual seed; which was set forth Allegorically, in Ishmael and Isaac. And here hath Mr. call. and his brethren been mistaken, in bringing an Argument to prove Infant baptism, drawn from Abrahams fleshly seed; affirming, that there is but one Covenant in that Scripture, and that is a covenant of Grace. And so have concluded; That all the fleshly seed of Abraham( and by their necessary consequences) all the fleshly seed of believing Gentiles, are the children of God, and are to be counted for the seed with whom God hath made an everlasting covenant of Grace. Contrary to these Scriptures, Rom. 9.6, 7, 8, 9. and Gal. 4.22, 23, 24. to the end.  
Neither doth that promise, Gen. 17.7. in the least concern the seed of the Gentiles; but the Jews onely, who were Abrahams seed after the flesh.  
Thus then we understand the Scripture; That the children of the flesh, to wit, those who are born after the flesh, or of the flesh, are flesh; Joh. 3.6. That is, are sinful; being conceived in sin, and shapen in iniquity, Psal. 51. and by natural generation, are the children of wrath as well as others: Ephes. 2.3. They are not the children of God, until they be born again, or born of God; Joh. 1.13. and Joh. 3.3.5, 6. But the children of the promise, that is, those who are in Christ, are counted for the seed. Gal. 3.29. And we brethren( to wit, who are believers) as Isaac was, are children of the promise. Gal. 4.28.  
But some may think, that this will put the children of Believers into as bad a condition, as the children of Turkes, Heathens, and any other wicked men; and this they are persuaded is an horrible thing, and a dangerous opinion. We put not the children of Believers into as bad a condition as the children of Turkes, &c. It was Adams disobedience in eating the forbidden fruit, that put all his posterity equally into a sinful and miserable condition, Rom. 5.12.19. And the doctrine which Mr. call. and his brethren teach, doth the like. They say( and it is truth) that all the Infants of Believers, are shapen in iniquity, and in sin doth their mothers conceive them; Yea they are born in sin, and are by nature children of wrath as well as others. And now let the Reader judge, Whether this their own doctrine, do not put the children of Believers into as bad a condition, as any Turks, Heathens, or wicked mens children; Why then should they go about to persuade the people, that our Opinion, That the Infants of Believers should not be baptized, is by no means to be received; because( they say) it puts their children into as bad a condition, as the children of Turks, Heathens, &c. when as their own doctrine doth the like. And some of their doctrines touching the Infants of Believers, puts them into a worse condition; to wit, into a condition of falling away from grace. For they affirm, that the Infants of Believers are within the covenant of Grace, and therefore are to be baptized; So Mr. Marshals Sermon about christian, Pag. 8& 37. And Mr. black Pag. 16. Also, this their judgement appears by the Directory; where the Parish Ministers are directed at baptizing of Children, to teach; That the promises of the covenant of Grace, is made to believers and their Infants. And that the Scripture which they continually produce, tends to prove this their opinion, to wit, Acts 2.39. And yet they are forced to confess, that some of the child en of Believers prove very profane, and notoriously wicked, yea live so, and die so, and are damned.  
So then by their own doctrine and confession, some of the infants of believers who are in the covenant of Grace, may perish in their sins, and be damned. Doth not this uphold that Arminian tenant of falling away from Grace? and the Popish doctrine, That persons may be in the state of Peter to day, and in the state of Judas to morrow? We would have said more to this thing, but Mr, tombs in his Examen of Mr. Marshals Sermon about christian; Pag. 45.46. unto the 54. page., hath handled this point very osundly. And we could earnestly desire every one, who questions christian, to read over Mr. tombs his book very seriously.  
It is not lawful, to apply or administer any Ordinance of Christ otherwise then according to the Rule of the Word.  
But to baptize any Infants, is to apply or administer an Ordinance of Christ, otherwise then according to the Rule of the Word:  
Ergo, It is not lawful to baptize any Infants.  
The truth of the Proposition appears;  
1. All will-worship is expressly condemned in the Scripture; See Coloss. 2.23. But every administration and application of an Ordinance of Christ, otherwise then according to the Rule of the Word, is manifestly will-worship.  
2. It is such an adding to that which God hath commanded, as is forbidden in Deut. 12.32.  
3 In this case we should be found to revive for doctrines the commandements of men; and our fear towards God would be found to be taught by the precepts of men: the evil whereof, appears in Isaiah 29.13. and Matth. 15.9.  
4. In doing this, we shall never be able to answer the demand in Isaith 1 12 Who hath required this at your hands? But we shall be found doers of those things which God commanded not, neither came they into his heart; touching which, see Jerem. 7.31.  
5. If Christ have not given complete directions in his Word, conceming the use of his Ordinances, how then is he faithful to him that appointed him,( not onely as the high-Priest, but also as the Apostle of our profession, and as the Prophet whom God raised up like unto Meses,) even as Moses also was faithful in all Gods house? See Deut. 18.15. and Heb. 3.1, 2.  
And if he have given such complete directions, Is it not then unlawful to apply or use his Ordinances, otherwise then according to his own directions?  
6 If it be lawful to apply or use the Ordinances of Christ, otherwise then according to the rule of the Word, or otherwise then may be warranted and justified by the Word; then both Jews and Turks, and other such, both young and old, may be admitted to the Ordinances: But this they all aclowledge unlawful to be done.  
Now, that the Baptizing of Infants is an applying or administering of baptism,( which is an Ordinance of Christ) otherwise then according to the rule of the Word, and otherwise then may be warranted and justified by the Word; and so now proved unlawful, we thus confirm.  
1. There is in the Scripture no precept enjoining us, no rule directing us, nor any example showing it lawful for us to baptize Infants.  
2. The onely written Commission to Baptize( which is in Matth. 28.19.) directeth us to baptize Disciples onely, go ye and Di ciple all Nations, baptizing them; that is, the Disciples: for this is the onely construction and interpretation that the Greek word can there bear; and Infants cannot be made Disciples, because they cannot learn.  
3. Those onely of the Jews might be baptized that did repent, as appears in Acts 2.38. and they onely of the Gentiles that did sincerely believe; as appears in Acts 8.37.  
4. In Acts 8.12. it is fully related who were baptized in Samaria, viz. not Infants, but men and women, when they believed.  
5. Then onely is baptism administered according to the rule of the Word, when a Disciple is Baptized into the Name of the Father, and of the Son, &c. Matth. 28.19. that is, into the profession of faith in the Father, Son, and holy Spirit; so the Apostle minds the Corinthians, that they had not been baptized into the Name of Paul, 1 Cor. 1.13. that is, into the profession of faith in Paul: this necessary excludes Infants, who can make no such profession. The supply of this want of profession, by the profession of those that have been called Sureties, doth now appear to all wise men, to be as ridiculous and absurd as Paedo-rantisme( now falsely called, christian) will shortly appear to be, to all the godly.  
6. All those that are baptized according to the rule of the Word, are looked upon as persons submitting themselves to the use of baptism by the direction of the holy Spirit; 1 Cor. 12.13. This also manifestly excludes all Infants.  
If Christ commanded not his Apostles to practise or teach the baptizing of Infants, then Infants ought not to be Baptized. But Christ commanded not his Apostles to practise, &c. Ergo,  
That Christ commanded not his Apostles to practise, or teach Infants baptism, is manifest; because the Apostles, in obedience to Christs word, Mat. 28.20. taught the faithful to observe all things that Christ commanded them. But no man can say that the Apostles taught the faithful to observe the baptizing of Infants, unless with the Papists he will fly to unwritten Traditions, falsely so called apostolical.  
If the doctrine maintaining Infants baptism, be no part of the revealed counsel of God, then Infants ought not to be baptized; For things that are revealed belong to us and to our children. But it is no part of the revealed counsel of God, as appears by the Apostles not declaring it. See Acts 20.27. Ergo, Infants ought not to be baptized.  
FINIS.