The Queries Examined, Postscript
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 Arguments, to prove what is denied in the ſaid Propoſition; I ſhall here offer the ſame to Conſideration. The Propoſition is this,
Prop. Infant-baptiſm is not contrary to the Command of Chriſt.
Contra. Infant-baptiſm is contrary to the Command of Chriſt.
Arg. 1.
If Infant-baptiſm be not contrary to the Command of Chriſt, then it is of divine Inſtitution,From the inſtitution of baptiſm.
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 Inſtitution of Infant-baptiſm.
Arg. 2.
If infant-baptiſm be not contrary to the Command of Chriſt, then it agrees with Chriſts Commiſſion From the inſtitution of Bapt…ſmfor 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 Command of Chriſt, then it is agreeable to the practice From the practice of the firſt Church.of the Apoſtolical Churches,
But infant-baptiſm is not agreeable to the practice of the Apoſtolical Churches.
Ergo, Infant-baptiſm is contrary to the Command of Chriſt.
The Major i… true, becauſe the Apoſtolical Church did obſerve all that 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 Command From the neceſſity of Repentance, where ſin is waſhed away baptiſmally.of Chriſt, then it is the baptiſm of Repentance for Remiſſion of ſin.
But infant-baptiſm is not the baptiſm of repentance 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 naturally From the ill conſequence of Infant-baptiſm.tends wholly to make void the baptiſm commanded 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 baptiſe For the unreaſonableneſs therof.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; Secondly, becauſe the Grounds uſually inſiſted on for infantbaptiſm, 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 From the diſhonour i… offereth to Chriſts practice.baptized in Rivers, or much water) ſuperfluous 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 effectually 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 Tradition oſ Pedobaptiſm.
FINIS.
End of the text · Thomas Grantham, The Queries Examined (1676)