THE FALLACY OF infant's baptism DISCOVERED. OR, Five ARGUMENTS, to prove that INFANTS ought not to be baptised.  
Delivered in private by Captain HOBSON, who should that day (with Master knowlss, and some others;) have discussed the thing in public with Master Callamy, and Master Cranford, &c.  
And now published for the benefit of those that seek the truth in love.  Col. 2.23. 
Which things have indeed a show of wisdom in will worship.  Isai. 1.12. 
Who hath required this at your hands?  
LONDON, Printed in the year 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 opportunity to hear one Captain Hobson (with two Ministers more) in private, who should have disputed in public with Master Callamy and some others, about the point of baptism, 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 he delivered, as I took 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 skilled (as in understanding, so) in writing syllogisms, which (I understand) he was enjoined so to speak, had he spoke in public, and he seemed to be willing to speak 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 Anabaptiss, and Separatists, but that these names of distinction may be laid down, and that we may all as sons 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 blindness, taking that upon trust, which now I see is contrary to Scripture, even infant's baptism.  
So desiring you to pass by infirmities in it, and make a good construction of it, I leave you to Truth, desiring you not to have any prejudicial thoughts against him that spoke it, notwithstanding any infirmities you may see in him that writes it.  
Yours in the Lord Jesus, S.S.   

THE FALLACY OF infant's baptism discovered.  
Dearest friends:  
SEeing a providence hath brought us together at this time, I shall therefore endeavour, according to the intent of our meeting to declare myself, and so declare myself, 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 public: But seeing a providence hath prevented us; and we who thought to have been in public, are now prevented by the civil Magistrate, whom we much honour; and with all willing Subjection, are willing to Obey in all things that cross not the LORD JESUS CHRIST: And truly here is that which stays our spirits, though we were willing to declare our judgements in public, to the view of Many; Yet if GOD will have it other ways, herein is our joy That the Truth knows how best to make out itself; And it God by our Silence, will cause Truth to speak, we rejoice: Or if the time is not yet come to have things brought to a public View, we desire to wait upon God, knowing that his time is best to make out Truth to the Sons of men.  
But before I address myself to what I intend to speak, I desire that you would give me leave to speak to two or three things: 

First, To desire you not to think it strange that not only 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 kernel; My meaning is, that we should speak so much of the outward Ordinance; and not enter into the unfolding of the sweet, and glorious mystery of God in Christ, wrapped 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 think it strange for me to speak to you, contrary to my wonted practice, which I shall at this time do, only speaking in a syllogistical way; for the truth is, I shall here endeavour to declare myself in private, as I did intend, to declare myself in public; and the same grounds I intended to lay down in public, I shall lay down here Against the baptising of Infants.    
And the reason of my speaking Syllogistically, is because it was an Injunction laid upon us so, to speak, had we met in public.  
But before I come to lay down 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 pass 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 itself.  
first, 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 itself, 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 itself; And from thence briefly observe with me these things.  
Doct. 1 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.  
Doct. 2 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 than 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 only that we should observe Christ's 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.  
Doct. 3 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 show 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.    

1 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 believing in God, or of our worshipping or walking with God. And so much of that thing.  

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

3 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.  
Reason 1 Reason 2 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 than if a man observes a thing only from Supposition, and not a command, at the best, it is but a supposed duty.  
Reason 3 But Thirdly, The will of Christ is, that as his Members are to believe 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 darkness, and not in light: Therefore not as a duty to be observed.  
Reason 4 Fourthly, We are so to observe things that we present to Christ, that not only 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 only 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.  
Reason 5 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.  
Reason 6 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 nowhere 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.  
Reason 7 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 spoke, 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, 
use.  which might be useful for us; But at this time I shall only 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 controversy: 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 believing parents were to be baptised, 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 baptising of believers; 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 justify their practice; and we by Scripture to justify 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 baptised, are these:  
Argum. 1 The first is this: That which doth (not only accidentally, but) directly deny Christ to be come in the flesh, That ought not to be done:  
But the baptising 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 baptising 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 baptising 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 entailed 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 child of Abraham, considered as a son of the flesh, had a right to it, and might, and did plead for privileges 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 believeth, 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 baptised. He takes them off from pleading their privilege 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 baptise Children because their Parents believe, 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 baptising 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 flesh.  
The Holy Ghost gives to Christ a preeminence 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 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 plead for the baptising 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 than the matter unfolded: And therefore he that goeth about to make Moses mouth to speak out Christ's 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. 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 lawgiver, as equal to, so transcending all others that were before him: But that men in the baptising 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 baptise Infants, and Answers the mind of Christ, and yet cannot show 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 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 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 baptising 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 there own Art and Reason to make Christ's Law strong enough to hold it out to be a duty. And whether the joining of man's 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 pre-eminence 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 righteousness, that as a duty to Christ, ought not to be observed.  
But, the baptising of Infants is no part of righteousness;  
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 righteousness, was seen either in the Person or Practice of Jesus Christ.  
But neither in the Person nor Practice of Jesus Christ, is the baptising of Infants seen or held forth.  
Therefore it is not part of righteousness.  
And that whatsoever is a part of righteousness, 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 righteousness. If all righteousness, than there was no righteousness but was confidered either in the Person or Practice of Christ. And that the baptising of Infants is not-held out in the Person or Practice of Christ, I leave to you to judge. He himself was not baptised 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.  
Object. If you Object, and say, There was none to baptise him before:  
Answ. I 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 Practice (though he baptised not, but his Disciples, John 4.2.) yet, in all their baptising where Christ was, you never hear that ever they baptised any Infant, or gave any command for it; And therefore it is no part of righteousness, 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 baptising 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 itself, Matth. 28.19, 20. Mark 16.15, 16. Where you shall see these things in the Commission, Go teach, Discipling, and baptising. And they that were to be baptised, were such as must first be Taught, and Discipled, and being believers, must be baptised, 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 believer in Christ. It is clear that it cannot be; and therefore the baptising of them, doth not answer the Commission of Christ.  
Every man that professes to act by a Commission, most not only 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 baptising of Infants doth not answer the Commission of Christ; And therefore it is none of Christ's Baptism, and ought not to be done.  
Secondly, Christ's 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.  
Argum. 4 Fourthly,  
That which causeth inconveniences in the Church, That ought not to be done.  
But, the baptising 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 baptising of Infants; and that thus:  
That which causeth inconveniences in the Church, That ought not to be done:  
But, (say they) the denying of children's 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 believers (say they) to be no other ways than the Children of Heathens; and so they go about to prove a Consequence by a Consequence; which is but 〈…〉 upon.  
But that the baptising of Infants doth cause inconvenience in the Church, I will prove from Scripture: and that thus;  
That which doth not only, present one, but make one a Member of a Church; before being called of God, That is inconvenient:  
But, the baptising 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 privileges to generation, which alone is to be entailed upon men in reference to regeneration, That is inconvenient.  
But the baptising of Infants, doth entail mercies and privileges 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 Christ's conjunction; That's inconvenient.  
But, the baptising of Infants, doth make a Separation, and distraction in Christ's conjunction; And therefore it is inconvenient.  
By Christ's conjunction, I mean the oneness that is between the ground that Christ lays down for men to be baptised, and the ground he lays down for men to break Bread; which is one and the same thing: He that believes, and knows, and discerns Christ, he is to be baptised, 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 baptising of Infants, by the same ground they would baptise Infants upon, they will not admit them nor others to break Bread; And therefore as Christ's ground is one, theirs is two: And under that consideration, they make a Separation in that which Christ makes a oneness; and that is inconvenient in the Church of Christ, and ought not to be done.  
Argum. 5 Fifthly, That which doth directly cross the proceedings in the time of the Law, and in the time of the Gospel. That ought not to be done.  
But, the baptising of Infants, doth directly cross 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 virtue 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 virtue of a Right, as he was a believer, and not by the virtue of a Rule; then Lot might have pleaded for the same privilege, for he was a believer as well as Abraham; yet God did not make choice of Lot, but of Abraham. And then, Ishmael should not have been circumcised, but only Isaa●; But though Ishmael was a son of the flesh, and cast out by God, and not a believer in God; yet he must be circumcised: And therefore this was not by the virtue of a Right, but by the virtue 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 virtue 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 baptised, I desire they would show it: Here is the Word of Truth, which justifies all things suitable to itself; 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 virtue 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 baptised.  
I am not here now to prove to you the baptising of believers; That's not the controversy in hand, though a thing clear by Scripture; and that which I should be glad if I had an occasion to speak of. Not only to speak of Baptism in the Letter, but Baptism in the Spirit, which was the mystery 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 signs to declare the Mystery of the Spirit; though I know none can understand it, but they that do enjoy 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 public, had we had liberty; which was, That Infants ought not to be baptised.  
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, suitable to the Rules of itself.  
FINIS.