INFANTS-BAPTISM Disproved: AND Believers Baptism proved. OR, An ANSWER To several Arguments propounded in a paper by Mr. Alexander Kellie, Minister at Giles Cripplegate London, and sent to Mr. Jeremiah Ives of the said PARISH. And is now published for the general information of all, but particularly for the satisfaction of many of the Inhabitants of the said PARISH, who have desired it. Wherein The ARGUMENTS for Infant-Baptism are examined and disproved.  
By the said Jeremiah Ives.  Prov. 18.17. 
He that is first in his own cause seemeth just, but his neighbour comes and searcheth him.  Job 6.25. 
How forcible are right words? but what do your arguings reprove?  Prov. 23.23. 
Buy the truth, but sell it not.  Luke 7.30. 
But the Pharisees and Lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, not being baptised of him.  
Printed at London for Richard Moon, and are to be sold at the seven Stars in Paul's Churchyard near the great North door, 1655.   

To the READER.  
Reader,  
IF those men of Berea, Act. 17.11. were counted more noble than they of Thessalonica, because they would take nothing upon trust that the Apostles said, but searched the Scripture daily to see if what They said were so; How ignoble should we be in this Age, (wherein men are much more divided in matters of Religion, than they were in the Apostles times, and wherein our Teachers themselves are contradictious one to another, in many of the great concernments of Religion) if we should receive any thing from them without diligent search into the Word of God, to see if it be true or no? sigh Solomon makes this a distinguishing Character between a wise Man and a Fool, Prov. 14.15. The simple believeth every word, but the wise man looks well to his go. Neither let a man think that his looking back to the ancient Fathers, and his searching of them, and reading them, will much help in the midst of these Religious disorders, because they were in many things as much contradictory to the Truth and one another, as any in these times, as for instance: Hierome and Chrisostome deny Original-sin in the sense it is now maintained. Augustine taught, That the Lord's Supper should be given to Infants, in his fifth Book of Hpognosticks. Justin Martyr against Triphon, saith, God at first gave the Sun to be adored. Origen held the Salvation of all both wicked men and devils. The Bishops of the East and West Churches opposed one another in the Doctrine of the Deity of Christ, in the time of Constantius Son to Constatinus Magius. And long after, Socrates, Lib. 1. Chap. 29. and Chrisostome, said, That Saint Paul spoke against Truth and Reason in allowing 2. Marriages. See Moulin's Defence, p. 137, 138. By all this you may see that we have great cause to search the Scripture, and not to follow the Fathers, or any, but wherein they followed Christ. And we may likewise understand, that that which the World now calls, The Christian Religion, is like the Weatherbeaten Bark at Athens, that had been so often mended and riged, that it was hard to say, whether it retained any of its old materials, only it retained its old Name. The like may be said of Religion, as it is commonly professed in the world by the generality of men, that it hath been so often mended with the new state of ●ens own inventions that if we look into the Word of God, and compare the state of the Christian Religion in the Apostles times, to the common Religion that is professed now in the Nation, and we shall find nothing but the name of it; the name of Believing, the name of Churches, the name of Baptism, the name of Ministers of the Gospel, the name of the Lord's Supper, the name of Christians, etc. How mightily then doth it concern us all, to search the Word of God which is a Light to us in this dark Day, and is able to lead us through all the Mists of the Mystery of Iniquity, and to set our fee● in a fair path, where we may walk without stumbling?  
But if you shall say, Have not our learned Men undertaken to reform Religion by the Word of God, and cannot they as soon hit the right way through these many ways, as we?  
I answer, 'tis one thing, what they can do; and another thing, what they will do: considering, how much the most part of them are taken with the love of this present World, and the pride of life, which stops them from laying aside any error that they have preached & practised, lest it should reflect either upon their profit on the one hand, or their credit and learning on the other, as some of the Bishops said in the Council of Trent, That the School men were like Astronomers, which did feigh Eccentricks, and Epicycles to save the Phenomina, though they knew there were no such thing. In like manner, as Sir Francis Bacon well observes in his Essays of Superstition, p. 97, 98. The Schoolmen (saith he) have framed a number of subtle and intricate Axioms and Theorems to save the practice of the Church. I shall therefore entreat the Reader, to see if the Profit of this World, and the Credit of the Learned, doth not engage them to do so in the present controversy of Infants. Baptism, and whether it doth not savour more of the spirit of the forenamed Bishops in the Council of Trent, then of the selfdenying spirit that was Christ and his Apostles. For this end, that thou mayst try all things, and hold fast the best, I have put forth that ensuing Controversy, which at first was in private at Mr. Kellie's own House, and afterward, according to a promise then made, he did send me in a Paper, (not only the Arguments that he laid down then, but also some others that he had not then time to propose) all which are particularly examined, and the Scriptures relating to them, seriously weighed and considered: and therefore, if by what is herein written, there be any discovery of the Truth on either side, receive it and embrace it with readiness of mind; and with the like readiness let thy heart be lifted to give God the Glory: which is all that is desired from him that is ready to serve thee in the Gospel of Christ,  
Jer. Ives. From my House in Red-Cross. Street, at the corner of the New. Street, this 16 of August, 1655.   

Infants-Baptism Disproved.  
In ANSWER to Mr ALEXANDER KELLIE His several Arguments levied in Defence of it. Together with the proof of the lawfulness OF Believers-Baptism.  
SIR;  
I HAVE received a Paper from you, wherein you use your best endeavour to prove that Infants ought to be Baptised: Which Proposition (you say.) you began to prove at a Meeting at your house, July 10. 1655. in the forenoon.  
Whether you did not at that time, do like the Builder that Christ speaks of, Luke 14.28, 29, 30. viz. begin to do that that you were never able to finish, I shall not now determine, but leave it to the Reader to judge, when he shall survey your Arguments, with the Answers to them.  
Your first stone that you lay in this building, or Argument that you bring to prove Infants ought to be Baptised, is,  Mr. Kellie's first Argument. 
IF all Nations are commanded to be baptised, than Infants are commanded to be baptised.  
But all Nations are commanded to be baptised.  
Ergo, Infants are commanded to be baptised.  Mr. Ive's Answer. 
I Do first deny the major Proposition, because that in many places of Scripture, the word all Nations is used, where Infants are not included; as Psal. 72.17. All Nations shall call him blessed. Deut. 29.24. All Nations shall say, wherefore hath the Lord done thus unto this Land? Mark 11.17. Is it not written (saith Christ) that my house shall be called of all Nations, the house of prayer? Psal. 118.10. All Nations compassed me about, but in the name of the Lord will I destroy them. And so Mat. 3.12. All Nations shall call you blessed. And the very place upon which you frame your Argument, is enough, if there were no more, Mat. 28.19. where Christ bids his Disciples to Go and teach all Nations, etc. I would ask any man that knows what an Argument is, whether by your Rule of reasoning (viz. All Nations are commanded to be baptised, therefore Infants) I may not as well say, The Disciples were commanded to teach all Nations, therefore they were commanded to teach Infants of eight days old?  
And again, the Disciples were commanded to teach them (to wit, the Nations, according to our Translation) all things that Christ commanded his Disciples to do. Now the Disciples were commanded to break bread, and drink wine, in remembrance of the body and blood of the Lord, Mat. 26.27. And they were commanded to wash one another's feet, John 13.14. and many other things. Now may I not as well say, That Infants were commanded these things, as well as baptism, since, as the 19 Verse saith, Baptise them, the 20 Verse saith, Teaching them to observe all things that I. (viz. Christ) have commanded you.  
And again, May I not as well say, from the fore cited Scriptures, because the Psalms saith, all Nations shall call Christ blessed, that Infants in the Cradle, at eight days old, shall call him blessed? And because all Nations shall say, wherefore hath God done this to Israel? therefore Infants of eight days old shall say so? And because that Christ saith that his father's house shall be called of all Nations a house of prayer, that therefore Infants of eight days old are commanded to call it so? And because David saith, all Nations compassed him about, therefore Infants of eight days old compassed him about? And because it's prophesied that all Nations shall call Israel blessed, therefore Infants of eight days old shall call them blessed? I say, May I not as well reason thus, as you may reason, If all Nations may be baptised, Infants may?  
2 I yet Answer further, as before at our meeting, That this Argument pleads as much for the baptising of all Turks and Infidels, because, as Turks and Infidels, they are a part of all Nations, though they never believe in Christ; and by this rule, the Eunuch, Acts 8. might have desired baptism, although he had never believed in Christ, because he was of some one Nation, or other; which is contrary, I presume, to your own opinion, and to the opinion of the Church of England, who will not baptise a Turk or an Indian, unless he convert and profess Christ. But may not the Turk or Indian, if he should be denied baptism, take up your Argument, and say, If all Nations may be baptised, than we may be baptised: But all Nations may be baptised; Therefore we may. See therefore how this Argument doth interfere with your own practice.  
3 Again, You seem to plead for the baptism of believers Children only, but your Argument pleads for unbelievers Children, as much or more than believers; for if that believers Children must be baptised because they are a part of Nations, who sees not but by the same rule unbelievers Children may be baptised, because they are a greater part of the Nations, than the Children of believers.  
I Answer to your minor Proposition, as before at your house, That it's a Command for believers and Disciples of Christ, that they should be baptised, and not for all the Nations, as appears by the Original word, which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, make Disciples, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, baptising THEM, and not the Nations, which you could not deny; which made way for your second Argument, which was to prove that Infants were Disciples.  Mr. Kellie's second Argument. 
ALL that are taught of God, are Disciples.  
But the Infants of God's people are taught of God. Ergo.  
They are Disciples.  Mr. Ive's Answer. 
I Answer, first, by distinguishing of the Term Taught, in the major Proposition. If by Taught you mean as the Prophet Jeremiah doth, Chap. 32.33. where it's said, God taught them, but they refused to receive Instruction; then I deny the major, for those that refused to receive instruction, were not Disciples, though they were taught.  
But secondly, If by Taught, you mean taught so as to receive instruction, and learn; then I deny the minor, for that Infants at eight days old are not taught, neither do they receive instruction, or learn. To prove this, you bring Isa. 54.13. where it's said, All thy Children shall be taught of God.  
Answer, This doth no more prove that infants in the Cradle of eight days old, were taught and learned, than the Command the Disciples had to teach all Nations, proves that they taught infants of eight days old, and that they learned instruction.  
2 This is a Prophecy that all Israel's Children should be taught of God, and not a Prophecy that they should all be taught so as to learn, in your sense, which is the thing you are to prove; for if they should all be so taught, than they should all of them be saved.  
3 If you shall say the Prophecy respects the believers Children, whether Jew's or Gentiles, that they shall be all taught, etc. yet it doth not say they shall be taught in their Cradle, or at eight days old; which you must prove, because you say infants are Disciples.  
4 How soon do you lose the terms of the Proposition! You are to prove Infants are taught, and you bring a Text that speaks of Children; as though there were no Children but infant-childrens: Whereas indeed, the Scripture tells us of all Abraham's Children, that were so by believing, and not by virtue of their carnal descent from Abraham, Gal. 3.7.  
You further go on, to prove that this Teaching is to be understood of infants, and that it's a teaching by which they learn, and are made Disciples, by the Argument that you used at your house, which is the same in your Paper.  Mr. Kellie. 
THey that are inwardly and effectually taught, are taught, and learn:  
But infants according to this Scripture (Isa. 54.13.) are inwardly and effectually taught.  
Ergo. They are taught, and learn.  Mr. Ive's. 
I Answer, by denying the minor, to wit, That infants are inwardly and effectually taught, according to that Scripture.  
For first, The word infants is not in the Text, which is the term of the minor Proposition.  
2 If by all thy Children shall be taught of God, the meaning should be, as you say, that the natural seed of the believers bodies should be all taught of God inwardly and effectually in their infancy, then to what purpose do you teach them to be converted when they come to years?  
3 If all the natural Children of believers be inwardly and effectually taught of God, than you must hold falling from grace totally and finally, or else conclude that all the natural Children of believers shall be all saved: For what is it to be inwardly and effectually taught, but to be really and truly Regenerated?  
You go on to prove the minor, (viz.) That all believers infants are inwardly and effectually taught; thus.  Mr. Kellie. 
IF infants were not inwardly and effectually taught, (you say) there were no hope of salvation in their death:  
But there is hope (say you) of salvation in their death. Ergo.  
They are inwardly and effectually taught.  Mr. Ive's. 
I Answer, first, You leave out the term ALL, and put your Argument into indefinite terms: But I presume by infants you mean all the natural seed of believers, according to your practice in baptising all of them that you call so.  
2 But I shall answer further, by denying the major, which is, That if infants were not inwardly and effectually taught, there were no hope of salvation in their death: For first, there was hope of the salvation of those Children with whom the Lord had not SPOKEN, nor to whom he had not given his Laws, Deut. 11.1, 2. But if they had been inwardly and effectually taught, than the Lord must needs have spoken with them; and if they were taught, it must be in God's Law; but it is said of those Children, That God had not spoke with them.  
3 Again, We have great hope of the salvation of infants, because they are made righteous by Jesus Christ, Rom. 5.18, 19 though they should not know this by an inward and effectual Teaching.  
Also the Scripture saith, That the Child shall not bear the sin of the father, and it hath committed in its infancy no sin of its own, what therefore should hinder us from hoping that they shall be all said, if they die in their infancy, although they are not taught inwardly and effectually.  
4 But last of all, it's a fiction of your own brain to say, Infants are inwardly and effectually taught, or else there is no hope of their salvation, because there is not one word of God for to justify such a saying in the whole Bible.  
But yet you adventure to bring that Text, 1 Thess. 4.13. where the Apostle adviseth, that the brethren would not sorrow as those that have no hope, because that there shall be a resurrection, which some did not hope for at the death of their friends, which made their sorrow the more intemperate. But now that I may have hope of the salvation of my Children at the resurrection, although I should not believe that unwritten Proposition, to wit, That in their infancy they are effectually taught, appears, because of the Text you so much urge in favour to your Baby-baptism, Mat. 19.14. where Christ bids the Disciples Suffer little Children to come to him, because of such is the Kingdom of Heaven. So that the Kingdom of Heaven belonged to infants before they had so much as been with Christ, or before he had actually blessed them.  
But you proceed to prove the minor Proposition, That Children must either be inwardly and effectually taught, or else there is no hope of salvation in their death; thus.  Mr. Kellie. 
WIthout the knowledge of God in Jesus Christ, which is eternal life, there is no hope of salvation.  
But without the inward and effectual teaching of God in infants, there is no knowledge of God in Christ. Ergo.  
Without the inward and effectual teaching of God, there is no hope of the salvation of infants.  Mr. Ive's. 
YOu left out the term Infants in your major Proposition, by which your Argument becomes fallacious, because it's a term that is afterwards inserted, both in your minor, and conclusion: which if you had played the part of an honest Logician, you should have inserted it in your major, and then it would have run thus, Without the knowledge of God in Jesus Christ, which is eternal life, there is no hope of salvation for infants; then I would have denied the major, and that because there is not one word of God for such a Proposition.  
2 God said he would have pity upon the City of Ninive, because their infants did not know their right hand from their left. Can any man believe that any body should be acquainted with the great and sublime matters of Jesus Christ, and eternal life, that knows not his right hand from his left in nature? and yet you say thus of children, viz. That they have the knowledge of God in Jesus Christ, when as yet they have not knowledge to know their right hand from their left in nature.  
3 Again, They that know his name, will trust in him: But you see Children in their infancy are called upon to do neither.  
4 Again, They that know God in Jesus Christ, are always in the Scripture distinguished from those that know him not: If so, than all Children in their infancy know God in Jesus Christ, or else you must show how some infants of eight days old may be judged to know him, and others may be judged to be ignorant of him. If you say you cannot distinguish, than I say you have as much reason to baptise a Turks Child at eight days old, as a Christians, since there appears as much of the knowledge of God in Christ in the one, as in the other, and then what becomes of your favour you would show to believers Children?  
Again, if they, viz. the infants of believers do know God in Jesus Christ in their infancy, how comes many of them so wicked when they come to years? Do you not here strongly smell of Arminianism, which you so much preach against, that men may be in the saving knowledge of God to day, and out of it to morrow?  
5 Again, the Scripture saith, Without saith 'tis impossible to please God, Heb. 11. and yet this is not to be applied to Children, because James saith, Faith without works is dead, James 2.17. So that if Children have faith in infancy, it's a dead faith, because it hath no works. And faith without works cannot save, ver. 14. So that you see this Text, Heb. 11. Without faith it is impossible to please God, must for what James saith, be understood of men that are arrived above the stature of intants of eight days old. In the like manner must we understand Christ, John 17. This is life eternal, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. Or else we must conclude, that some Children shall be damned dying in their infancy, for not knowing God in Jesus Christ, when they were no way made capable of such a knowledge.  
Lastly, The Scriptures say, Deut. 1.39. that Children in their infancy have no knowledge of good or evil; the like is said of Christ himself in his infancy, Isa. 7.14, 15, 16. How then can you imagine that infants can know God in Jesus Christ, and yet not know good, when the knowledge of God in Christ is the knowledge of the best good of all.  
But you go on, and tell us, That infants dying in their infancy are saved.  
Which is not the thing denied; but the thing denied, is, That they cannot be saved without the knowledge of God in Christ; and instead of this, you would prove that infants shall be saved, which I never denied.  
Only let me tell you, That you miserably abuse the Scripture you bring to prove their salvation, which is Isa. 65.20. from which Text you observe, That they die in as good a case, as Disciples of a hundred years standing.  
O miserable blindness! the Text saith, There shall not be in the New Jerusalem an infant of days; and yet you bring this in favour to your eight day's infants.  
Again, You say, That infants die in as good a condition, as Disciples of a hundred years standing; whereas the Text saith, The Child shall die a hundred years old, I pray how many such infants do you baptise? So that this Text I believe you urged without Book, for there is not the least word of such infants as you plead for, nor of such old Disciples to whom you would compare them. But are you so charitable towards infants, that you believe they shall be saved? then pray let not the Midwives baptise, for fear they should be damned, which some of your cloth have allowed, making the sprinkling water upon their face, a cause of their salvation, rather than the knowledge of God in Christ, that you now plead for.  
But you go on, and tell us.  Mr. Kellie. 
THat if we judge infants shall be saved, than they should be daily added to the Church by Baptism. And for this you cite Acts 2. ult.  Mr. Ive's. 
I Shall first speak to your Argument, and then to the Text.  
This is a palpable non sequitor, for by this Argument Moses might have Circumcised Children the first day they were born; for Moses might have said, I judge these Children have a right to salvation the first day they are borne, therefore they have a right to be added to the Church by circumcision the first day they are born. Upon this account he might have circumcised the females, because he judged that salvation did belong to them. But if you shall think to salve this sore, by saying He was commanded to circumcise the vl day, and to circumcise the male Children; let me tell you, that he was not forbid either the one or the other: But if you shall say, that in as much as God commanded the eighth day, he did forbid doing of it before; and in as much as he did Command the Circumcising of males, he forbidden the circumcising of females: Let me tell you then, that in as much as God hath prescribed believing to be the time of baptising, it will be found a sin to do it upon any persons, at any other time but when they believe with all their hearts, according to Acts 8.37. And as for that Text which you urge, Acts 2.47. The Lord added to the Church daily such as should be saved. Compare this but with vers. 41. and you will find these to be no such Babies as you baptise, and add to your Church; for the Text saith, Then they that gladly received his word, were baptised, and the same day there was added to them about three thousand souls. And Acts 5.14. Believers were added to the Lord. What serves this to prove that which you would have? Doth it not strongly carry the contrary, That infants were not baptised, because they are not where called believers.  
You now face about, as though all were not safe in the Rear, and go back to the Text in Esay 54. Surely you feared all the hay and stubble that you built upon that Text, was set on fire by the Answers that I gave to it at your house, and now you are returning to quench it: But you must know, that your clouds of Arguments are without water, as I shall make appear upon Examination.  
First, You say,  Mr. Kellie. 
THat teaching must be inward and effectual, in Isa. 54.13.  
1 Because it hath the great peace of God going along with it.  
From whence you Argue thus.  
They that have the great peace of God going along with their teaching, are inwardly and effectually taught:  
But all the Children of God's people have the great peace of God go along with their teaching;  
Therefore they are inwardly and effectually taught.  Mr. Ive's. 
I Answer this, by denying the major; for all the world gave the great peace of God going along with their teaching, in as much as God holds forth life and peace in the Gospel. And yet you will not say that all the world are inwardly and effectually taught.  
2 Again, to your minor, if by all the Children of God's people, you mean all their natural Children in their infancy, as you must, or else you say nothing to your purpose; then I do deny the minor, because it supposeth God doth inwardly and effectually preach peace to believers infants, whereas he preacheth nothing at all to them: Neither doth the Text say he doth, for than they must (viz.) all the infants of believers, be actually saved, although they should live to perpetrate never such horrible wickednesses; for if they, to wit, all the natural Children of believers, are in this condition in their infancy, what sin can deprive them of eternal life, when they come to years? unless (as I have said before) you will hold falling from this grace and peace you speak of, totally and finally; which is an opinion that you do not reckon among the least of errors.  
Again, if believers natural Children, as such, are thus privileged, as you speak of, with this grace and peace, than the Children of the flesh are the Children of God. But the Children of the flesh are not the Children of God. Ergo. They are not as believers natural Children, thus privileged.  
You go on to a second Reason, to prove the teaching in Isa. 54. to be inward and effectual teaching; which what if it were granted, doth it prove that this was to infants in the Cradle of eight days old: But we have before shown the contrary, that it is not meant of such: But however let's hear your other Argument, which is.  Mr. Kellie. 
THat if it were not inward, and effectual teaching, it were rather a judgement threatened, than a mercy promised.  Mr. Ive's. 
BElike then by this kind of reason, when God teacheth a people, and they do not learn, his teaching is a judgement, and not a mercy. If this be true, than they that are under your teaching, and are not inwardly and effectually taught, do not live under mercies, but judgements; and so they do not despise a mercy, when they are not inwardly and effectually taught, but a judgement. The weight of this Reason is lighter than vanity.  
Your third Reason that this must needs be inward and effectual teaching, is,  Mr. Kellie. 
BEcause John brings it in as a proof of effectual Teaching.  
From whence you say the Argument may be thus framed.  
THey that are drawn to the Father, and come to the Son, are effectually taught:  
But they that are taught according to that Scripture, Isa. 54. are drawn to the father, and come to the Son. Ergo.  
They are inwardly and effectually taught.  Mr. Ive's. 
HEre the minor is denied, for the Reasons before named (viz.) For then all believers Children must all be saved, or else they may fall away from this teaching. And Christ himself doth suppose as much, in the place cited by you, out of John 6.44, 45. where though he saith, It's written, they shall be all taught of God; here is not the least cry of the teaching of infants of eight days old.  
But secondly, Though he saith, They shall be all taught of God, he doth not say, they shall all hear, learn, and come to him.  
But he saith, Every one that hath HEARD, and LEARNED, comes, thereby showing that more were taught, and more heard, then did learn and come to him.  
You go on to a fourth Reason, and say,  Mr. Kellie. 
CHildren are all taught of God, because all know him from the least to the greatest, Heb. 8.11.  Mr. Ive's. 
I Wonder you have forgot the Curse that God pronounceth against him that addeth, or taketh from his word; which if you had not, you would not have said, that all know him from the least, to the greatest; when the Text saith no such thing, but that they SHALL all know him from the least to the greatest; not that they do all know him. But if you say, they do all know him; then remember that the same Text saith, They shall not need to teach their Neighbours, saying, know the Lord: If this be already fulfiled, what do you preach for? And if all believers Children both little and great, know the Lord so as to need none to teach them, than you must find out another Trade, or else go and teach among the Heathen; for you judge all the Parish of Cripplegate believers, in as much as you baptise all their Children, and refuse none: And by the same rule you may as well judge all England believers, and if so, then if that all these believers and their Children know the Lord, according to that text, so as they need no Teacher, from the greatest to the least, than you must go to Preach to the Infidels in America, for by your own Text we have no need of you here. I do therefore charge all men with folly in the Parish of Cripplegate, that shall pay you a farthing for Preaching, till you do repent of your folly in thus expounding Heb. 8.11. For is it not folly for a man to pay for that he hath no need of?  
5 You go on, and tell us.  Mr. Kellie. 
THat Children trust in God, Psal. 22.9.  
Ergo.  Mr. Ive's. 
HEre you pervert Scripture, for the text saith not that Children trust in God in their infancy; but it saith that David as well as other infants were made by God to hope upon their mother's breasts; for these words [When I was] are unnecessarily supplied by the Translater, and are not in the Original, and therefore we see that as well unbelievers as believers Children do hope upon their mother's breast. I wonder how any man in his right wits can say from this Text, that David or any infant in their infancy do trust in God? Nay, may not a man as rationally conclude, that the whole Creation are inwardly & effectually taught, and that they trust in God, because Paul saith, Rom. 8.20. that the Creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him that hath subjected the same IN HOPE.  
6 You go on, and say,  Mr. Kellie. 
THat infants are most humble, therefore taught.  Mr. Ive's. 
THe Text that you urge, Luke 9.48. saith not such thing, only that Christ set a little Child before them for example: I would therefore know whether or no the Text proves the humility of these Children to be by teaching, or by nature. If by teaching, than the Disciples had no need to learn of Children, because it cannot reasonably be supposed that infants in the Cradle should be taught more than those Master-builders that were to go forth to teach others. If this humility was natural to them, as to all Children before they come to have knowledge, than it makes nothing for your purpose; and that it was such, appears by the matter in hand, for the question was, who should be the greatest, vers. 46. Now he bids them take example of Children in their infancy, who then have no natural propensity to such kind of ambition, as to think themselves greater, or more honourable than others. In the like case Christ bids his Disciples Be wise as Serpents, may not a man as well conclude that Serpents are inwardly and effectually taught, because Christ sends his Disciples to learn wisdom of them, as you may conclude infants are inwardly and effectually taught, because Christ sends his Disciples to learn humility of them? And Christ bids his Disciples to learn innocency of Doves, doth it therefore follow that Doves are inwardly and effectually taught?  
7 You tell us  Mr. Kellie. 
THat inward and effectual teaching of infants appears from 1 Thess. 4.9, 10. Where he tells the brethren, they were taught of God to love one another.  Mr. Ive's. 
WOuld any body that had but common sense conclude that Paul writ this to infants, when he writes to the Thessalonians, that they are taught of God to love one another?  
8 You tell us,  Mr. Kellie. 
THat you may say of infants, and their spiritual birth, and teaching, as Solomon saith of the natural, Eccles. 11.5. As thou knowest not which is the way of the Spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with Child, even so thou knowest not the works of God that maketh all. Yet this I grant, that the time of Gods teaching is not always in infancy; for some are called at the last hour, and you baptise some who (possibly) are not effectually called till afterward.  Mr. Ive's. 
INdeed you may say so of their spiritual birth, for your tongue is your own; but the Scripture speaks of no such spiritual birth in infants, as you do imagine: And you have answered yourself, and given a reason why you may not say of their spiritual birth, as Solomon doth of their natural, because you say that many are not spiritually born in their infancy; but I hope you cannot say so of any infants, that they have not a natural birth; for though Solomon saith, We do not know how the Children are form in the womb, yet he denies not but they are all form in the womb: But you as you do not know how, so you confess you do not know who are spiritually thus born. But is not this strange, that you should spend so many Arguments as you did a little before, to prove that all infants of believers are inwardly and effectually taught, drawn, and come to Christ, and that now you should tell us, that some of them are not called till the last hour: And if you should think to excuse the matter by saying, that you mean some unbelievers Children are not called till then; that will not do, because you told me in the beginning of your paper, that it was for believers infants that you pleaded, and the whole scope of your paper speaks forth the same thing, and not one word of unbelievers Children, etc.  
You tell us, That some that we baptise are not effectually taught till afterwards.  
To this I answer, That it justifieth us if they do profess so to be when they are baptised, For with the heart man doth believe, and with the mouth confession is made to salvation, Rom. 10.10. And so it would justify you, if that there were a confession of faith made at the time you did baptise, and a life conformable thereunto, which is all that we are to look after, because it's God's work to search the heart, and not ours.  
You proceed to prove (if you can) that infants are Disciples, thus.  Mr. Kellie. 
THey to whom we may give a Cup of cold water in the name of Disciples, are Disciples:  
But we may give a Cup of cold water to little Children;  
Therefore little Children are Disciples.  Mr. Ive's. 
I Answer, first, by denying the major; for may I not as well say, that they to whom we may give a thing in the name of a King, are Kings; and they to whom we may show favour in the name of God, and Christ, are so many Gods and Christ's; as you can say, they to whom we may give a cup of cold water in the name of a Disciple, are Disciples: Who seethe not the weakness of this kind of arguing? But now to the minor Proposition, where you assume that we may give to little children a cup of cold water in the name of a Disciple. I answer, If by little Children you mean such as John means, 1 John 2.1. Little Children, these things I writ, that you sin not. And ver. 12. I writ unto you little Children, because your sins are forgiven. I say, if you do mean such, I do grant the minor Proposition, viz. That to such little ones we may give a Cup of water in the name of a Disciple: But this I suppose cannot be your meaning, in as much as you are to prove that infants are Disciples, and there is nothing to that purpose in the Text: However I take notice of your wand'ring up and down, in saying, Sometimes infants are Disciples, not telling us whether you mean believers or unbelievers infants. Sometimes that all believers infants are Disciples: And sometimes that some are not called till the last hour: Only we take for granted what you said at first, that you would undertake for believers Children; if so, then suppose that the little ones here in Mat. 10. last. were understood of infants, yet how do you prove that they were believers infants? But it will be a task too hard for you to do either the one, or the other.  
You go on to tell us,  Mr. Kellie. 
THat you have five things more to say for infant's Discipleship.  
The first is this, If that infants may be called his servants, though they do no service, Leu. 21.41, 42.  
Then they may be called Disciples, though they do not appear to learn:  
But they may be called Gods servants, though they do him no service. Ergo.  
They may be called Disciples, though they do not appear to learn.  Mr. Ive's. 
I Answer, first, by denying the major, for if it be granted that Children were called his servants, though they did God no service, yet it follows not that therefore they are Disciples, though they do not learn.  
May not a man as well prove the unprofitable servant, Luke 19 by the same Logic, to be a Disciple? as thus: If one may be called Christ's servant, though he do him no work, than he may be called Christ's Disciple, though he do not appear to learn: But the unprofitable servant, Luke 19 was called Christ's servant, as appears by vers. 13. and Mat. 25.14. and yet he did him no work. Ergo. He was Christ's Disciple, though he did not appear to learn: And by this Rule the non sequitor of your major Proposition appears.  
But now to your minor, that Children are called Gods servants, though they did him no service.  
I answer, first, That infants of eight days old are not called Gods servants any where in Scripture. 2 As to the Text urged in favour to this, Leu. 25.41, 42. if you compare it with vers. 39 you will see it was not spoken to prove infants in the Cradle God's servants, but rather to show, that because the Nation of Israel, that he brought out of Egypt, were his servants, therefore they should not be slaves one to another, and sold as bond men, which they never did use to do to Children in the Cradle.  
3 Again, Cannot God speak many things concerning Children, as that they are his servants, etc. and yet not speak of Children in their infancy? May not a man as well say, because Israel was bid to teach their Children, that therefore they were to teach infants of eight days old? And because Josh. 22.10. it's said The Children of Gad built an Altar, therefore the infants of Gad were Masons, and Stone-cutters? And because it's said of the virtuous woman, Prov. 31.20. Her Children rise up, and call her blessed, therefore her little infants of eight days old did call her blessed? Is not this as good reason as that which you bring, viz. Because God saith, the Israelites children were his servants, therefore their infants of eight days old were his servants.  
2 You go on, and tell us, that  Mr. Kellie. 
PEter in Acts 15.10. calls infants Disciples.  Mr. Ive's. 
ARe you not ashamed to speak such a notorious falsity? Doth that Text say, that Peter calls infants Disciples? Oh what a mercy is it that we can read! surely if we could not, you might as well say, that Peter said you should have the fifth penny of our estate for preaching, as say he saith, Infants are Disciples.  
Now indeed Peter blames them for putting the yoke of Circumcision upon Disciples; but this doth no more prove infants to be Disciples, then if a man would say, The Clergy are oppressed by Taxes, therefore every one that's oppressed by Taxes, is a Clergyman; for is it not the same that you bring? The Disciples were circumcised, therefore all that they circumcised, were Disciples. Now if you look to the foregoing verses, you shall see that the false Teachers taught circumcision to the brethren, and not to infants, and told the Disciples, that if they were not circumcised, they could not be saved. And now if it be granted, that they would have circumcised infants, as well as old folks, doth this prove infants are old folks? No more doth your saying, they would circumcise Disciples, prove infants to be Disciples.  
You proceed to a third Reason why Children should be Disciples, and that is this, viz.  Mr. Kellie. 
THat if you should grant they are not learned, but ignorant, yet ignorance (you say) did not debar from Circumcision, therefore not from baptism.  Mr. Ive's. 
I Answer, by showing you how willing you are to gather up any thing to serve your turn, though nothing to purpose; one while they, viz. infants, are to be baptised, because believers Children, do know the Lord, and are taught of God, etc. And now you plead, they may be baptised, though ignorant: What a miserable shuffling is here? What, knowledge the cause all this while, and now be baptised though they are ignorant, what strange Logic is this?  
But to the Consequence, viz. Ignorance (you say) did not hinder from Circumeision, therefore not from baptism.  
I answer, first, ignorance could not hinder infants from that which God commanded Parents to do unto their Children, while they were infants; so that if God had commanded parents to baptise their infants, than their ignorance could not hinder, no more than it could hinder their parents from Circumcising them, after God had commanded it. But here you do beg the question, by taking it for granted, that God commanded infants to be baptised, as he did Command the Children of Abraham to be Circumcised.  
2 Again, in Gospel worship whatever is not of faith, is sin. God will (in Gospel worship) be served in Spirit, which is a service no where required of infants, therefore ignorance must needs hinder infants from that which God no where requireth, and which they are no way capable to perform.  
You go on, and tell us, that  Mr. Kellie. 
IGnorance did not hinder Peter from his Masters washing his feet, John 13.7, 8. The 7th verse (you say) shows his ignorance, and the 8th the necessity of his washing.  Mr. Ive's. 
WHy do you not conclude somewhat from hence, or else why do you bring it? If you bring it to prove that therefore ignorance may not hinder Children from baptism, then pray see whether or no Peter did not know Christ washed his feet, and whether in reason can you believe that Christ could wash Peter's feet, and Peter be as ignorant of his washing, as your babies are of their sprinkling.  
Again, it plainly appears that Peter was ignorant, not of the washing itself, but of somewhat Christ would make known by it, which was to show, That they whom he washed should learn of him to do so to others; and therefore Christ asketh his Disciples if they knew what he had done to them. Now they could not but know he had washed them, but they did not know that he had hereby set them a Copy to write after; and therefore if your Children had as much knowledge of Christ when you baptise them, as Peter had when Christ washed his feet, though they might not know all circumstances relating to baptism, than indeed it were somewhat to your purpose to quote this place.  
Again, is it not a strong sign of a weak cause, that you should compare the ignorance of Peter to the ignorance of your infants? his being but a partial ignorance in a circumstance, and your Babes are totally ignorant of both substance and circumstance. Again, this Law of washing the Disciples feet was never in practice before, till Christ now did it, and commanded it; and therefore no marvel though the Apostles were ignorant of the end of it, till it was declared; neither was there any such qualifications required in washing one another's feet, as is required in baptism.  
You proceed, and say, that  Mr. Kellie. 
THe Scripture doth not say, None shall be baptised but understanding Disciples, and if it did (you say) yet that had not excluded infants; for the Apostle saith, He that will not labour, must not eat, and yet Children (say you) must not starve, though they do not labour.  Mr. Ive's. 
TO this I answer, first, that the Scripture doth not say, you shall not baptise, bells, nor go a Pilgrimage, why then do not you do these things?  
2 Again it did not say (as we have elsewhere observed) that the Children of Abraham should not be circumcised the sixth or fourth day, why then did not they do it before? Nor the Scripture doth not say, Infants shall not receive the Sacrament of the bread and wine, why do you then refuse to give it them? Do you not plainly see that you condemn others in the thing you allow? for you condemn us that will not baptise our infants, because you say it's no no where forbidden; why may not others as well condemn you for refusing to give the Lords Supper to infants, by the same rule, because it's no no where forbidden.  
I but you will say, it's implicitly forbidden, 1 Cor. 11.28. because the Text saith, Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat; and Children cannot examine themselves. In the like manner (say I) infants are denied baptism, because the Scripture saith, He that BELIEVETH, and is baptised, etc. Mark 16. and If thou BELIEVEST, thou mayest be baptised, Acts 8. Do not these in the judgement of any rational man as plainly exclude infants from baptism, as the other Scripture doth exclude them from the Supper?  
But you presume and say, that  Mr. Kellie. 
IF the Scripture had said, None but understanding Disciples should be baptised, that had not excluded infants.  Mr. Ive's. 
IS not this strange that you should say, That they are not to be excluded, though the Scripture do exclude them? Do you not hereby give us to understand, that let the word of God say what it will, you will do what you list? Neither do you think to mend the matter by that place of Scripture, 2 Thess. 3.10. If any will not work, he should not eat. Now you seem to conclude from hence, that though Children do not work, yet they must eat. Ergo. Though children do not believe, yet they must be baptised. Now see the fallacy; the Text doth not say, He that DOTH not work, as you say, when you apply it to infants; but He that WILL not work. Now if there be any children that WILL not work, they must not eat, viz. of the Church's Charity; therefore infants, and they that are impotent, it cannot be said of them that they WILL not work. Now if God had given you the like Command to baptise Children in their infancy, as he hath done to fathers and mothers to feed them in their infancy, than you had said something to the purpose, otherwise you had as good have said nothing.  Mr. Kellie. 
Again, You (say I) brought in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to prove that the Command, Mat. 28. reacheth only Disciples, not all Nations; my reason (you say) is, Because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Neuter, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Masculine Gender. But this (you say) is no reason at all, as appears by Mat. 25.32. where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must ned's have relation to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, unless there shall not be a separation between all Nations at the last day. This Enallage generis, where the Masculine Gender is put with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is usual in Scripture, and many times (you say) includes Children, as Mat. 25.32. Rev. 2.26, 27. & 19.15. Acts 15.17. & 21.25. & 26.17. & 28.28. Ephes. 2.11. & 4.17.  Mr. Ive's. 
1 YOu did agree at your house, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did relate to Disciple, and accordingly went about to prove that Children were Disciples, as appears by many of your Arguments.  
2 I said not that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did no where refer to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but that in this Scripture it ought to refer to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which you also granted.  
3 Though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be referred to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, yet it doth not follow that the infants in the Nations are included, yea, the contrary is apparent from the latter clause of the sentence, where it is said, Teaching them, which doth sufficiently intimate, that those of the Nations are hereby only meant, who are capable of Discipline, and consequently had the use of reason, which agreeth not unto infants, who, as the Scripture showeth, together with the attestation of common sense, have no knowledge between good and evil. Deut. 1.39. Moreover, your little ones which you said should be a prey, and your Children which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it. Isai 7.14, 15, 16. Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign, behold a Virgin shall conceive a Son, and shall call his name Imanuel. Butter and Honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. For before the Child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the Land that thou abhorrest, shall be forsaken of both her Kings. Likewise the very instance you bring out of Mat. 25.32. doth refute your opinion, for there such only of the Nations are understood, as had acted in the world, and done either good or evil; for they are such as had either relieved Christ in his necessity, or refused to do so; neither of which agreeth to infants; for would it not be ridiculous to imagine that our Lord Christ should say to the infants, Go ye cursed into everlasting fire, for I was hungry, and ye fed me not? Besides, every one of the rest of the places cited by you, where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is found, doth, if the circumstances be examined, mean them only of the Nations that had the use of reason, and so are not a whit to your purpose.  
4 You go on to another Argument, and tell me, that  Mr. Kellie. 
THat which God hath once commanded, and never repealed, ought still to be obeyed:  
But he did once Command that the Children of his servants, whom he hath taken into Covenant with himself, should have the seal of the righteousness of faith set upon them, which he hath never forbidden, only he hath taken away the outward circumcision, therefore we must obey that Command still.  Mr. Ive's. 
I Do deny this whole Sillogism, because first, there is not one of the terms of the Propos: in it; which had you argued honestly, you should have said thus, That which God once commanded, and never repealed, is in force still: (and then you should have assumed) But God did once Command the baptising of infants, and never repealed it; therefore that Command is in force still. Indeed had you reasoned thus, and proved the minor, a gracious heart would hardly have denied it: But then  
2 This Argument contradicts itself; for you say, He did once Command, and never afterwards forbid that infants should have the seal and token of the Covenant; and yet you say presently after, That Circumcision was taken away; than it follows, that the seal of it was prohibited, and the use of it forbidden; is not this a palpable contradiction? For what was the seal of faith that God commanded to Abraham? Was it not Circumcision? Gen. 17.10. Rom. 10.11. If so, then when Circumcision was repealed, that Law which commanded nothing else, must needs be repealed; and if the Law be in force, it must require some other thing as well as Circumcision, and so be but in part repealed; if Circumcision be repealed. You might as well have said, that James Duke Hamilton was a live, after James Earl of Cambridge was beheaded, as say that that Law given to Abraham, Gen. 17.10. is in force, and yet say Circumcision was taken away. Who but those are wilfully ignorant, doth not see this empty kind of arguing?  
You proceed to another Argument, and tell me, that  Mr. Kellie. 
THey which had a right to the Ordinance that was profitable every way, have still a right to baptism:  
But the Children of God's people have a right to that Ordinance that was profitable every way. Ergo.  
The Children of God's people have a right to baptism.  Mr. Ive's. 
THis Argument among the rest we met with at your house; and I did then, and so I do now deny the major; for if you look the text upon which it is grounded, Rom, 3.1, 2. you will find that this Ordinance you speak of, was Circumcision; so that then the major Proposition in plain English is this, They that had had a right to Circumcision, have a right to baptism; if this be a good Argument, why do you plead for the infants of believers so much? May you not as well plead for the unbelieving Jews, and their infants by the same reason, thus, They that had a right to circumcision, have a right to baptism; but the Jews and their infants had a right to Circumcision, therefore they have a right to baptism now. If you shall say, so they have, if they convert to believe in Christ, I say then you have answered yourself; and than it followeth not that their right to Circumcision did give them a right to baptism; but their believing in Christ, for if it did, your must baptise a Jew though he did never believe.  
You now come to scare me with great words, since you cannot do it by Arguments; and this you endeavour to do, by telling me of fearful and base Absurdities that will follow upon what I have said in denying infants baptism.  
The first Aburdity (you say) is,  Mr. Kellie. 
THat if baptism be denied to the infants of believers, than the Children of the Devil's servants under the Law, had better means of grace conferred upon them, than the dearest Children of the best servants of God have now under the Gospel, thought the Gospel be a better Covenant, established upon better promises, Heb. 7.22. Heb. 8.6, etc.  Mr. Ive's. 
I Answer to this, first by denying the Consequence; for it doth not follow they had better privileges then, than we have now, if we deny them baptism: But the contrary is true, we are, and so are our Children, freed from those rudiments they were in bondage to, Gal. 4.3, 4. and Vers. 5. 'tis said, Christ came to redeem us from the Law. And in Acts 15.10. (your Text that you did allege for infant's Discipleship) Circumcision is there called a yoke that neither they nor their fathers were able to bear; and yet you presume to call this a privilege, which the Scripture calls a bondage, and a yoke. But if you shall say, that in Rom. 3.1, 2. the Apostle says, they had advantage by it. I answer, that proves not but that it was a yoke; for a servant hath an advantage by a Prenticeship, doth it follow therefore that an Apprenticeship is not a state of bondage? Now if God will freely bestow those things upon our infants without either Circumcision or baptism, this is so far from Less grace, that it is more grace than was bestowed upon infants under the Law. And I challenge you and all the world to show me one Text in all the Bible where God doth either threaten parents or Children with the loss of any favour, either spiritual or temporal, for not baptising their infants. If so, than your talking of denying them favour, by denying them baptism, is but a figment of you own brain.  
And whereas you talk of the Children of the Devils servants, that they had more privilege than we, because they were Circumcised.  
I answer, first, the Text that you bring to prove it, Ezek. 16.20. saith not so. 2 It saith they did offer their Children in the fire; but yet remember, that this Chapter treats of the whole Nation of Israel, which you spoke so much in favour of but even now, though you now call them the Children of the Devil; but be it so, you have heard that their privilege you plead for, was a bondage that God hath freed our infants from, and as long as you confess they are freed form Circumcision, and you cannot prove any other thing is enjoined to infants, what's become of your great Absurdity?  
Your second Absurdity is like the first, for (you say) that  Mr. Kellie. 
DEnying infants baptism, shows God is less careful, and his love is less, and his faithfulness is lessened towards infants now, over it was of old. And this you would prove from Jer. 30.20. & Mic. 7. last.  Mr. Ive's. 
IN the first of these Scriptures it is said, that the Children of Israel shall be as afore time; and you say the Children of his people in the Gospel shall be as the Children of his servants afore time; which is altogether false, for it is a Prophecy of their return from all Nations, to become a Nation again as before time, as any body may see, that doth not wink, at Jer. 30.18. And as for this Text, if by making infants under the Gospel, as the Jews were under the Law, if that be your notion upon the Text, and the word afore time, than we must circumcise them, or else they cannot be as afore time: Do you not pervert Scripture to make us Judaize? And to that Text, Mic. 7. last. where God saith, He will perform his truth to Jacob, etc. I demand first, whether ever God swore to Jacob, or the fore fathers, or ever made any promise to them, that their infants under the Gospel should be baptised; if he did, show us where; if he did not, than you do but slander God, instead of bringing the least absurdity upon me, in saying, that he is unfaithful, etc. if infants are not baptised. And you tell us that Christ, Luke 1.71, 72. Came into the world for this end; it's true, he came to fulfil what God had promised before time, but how doth this bear hard either upon his love or faithfulness, viz. Not to baptise infants, unless, as I have said, he had before promised they should be baptised?  
Your third Absurdity, is that  Mr. Kellie. 
DEnying infants baptism, doth dishonour God's wisdom; because we look upon it as folly (say you) to administer an Ordinance to infants; but the wise God did administer an Ordinance upon the infants that did not understand it.  Mr. Ive's. 
TO this I answer, That our denying infant's baptism doth rather dishonour your wisdom, and the wisdom of this world, than the wisdom of God, because God never required it at your hands.  
And whereas you say, God did administer an Ordinance to ignorant infants, etc. I demand if this be not horrible presumption for you to administer an Ordinance upon infants without a Command, because the most high God caused an Ordinance once to be administered by a Command? And whether now for any one to oppose this practice of yours, be not much rather a flying in the face of your wisdom, than Gods? It's no marvel then that you say, Here is enough to kindle your spirit against my opinion for ever, because indeed denying infants baptism, sets as it were a fire the foundation of your Craft, by which you beguile the simple: And you know this put a fire into the breast of the men of Ephesus, against the Apostles Doctrine, when they understood that the gain they got by their Will-worship, was like to be set at naught.  
Your fourth and last Absurdity that you say follows upon denying infants baptism, is, that  Mr. Kellie. 
IT makes believing parents and their Children, worse than Heathen and their Children, in whom the Prince of the power of the air ruled, etc.  
Yet such (say you) coming into the acknowledgement of the true God, had not only themselves, but their infants taken into Covenant, and had the token thereof, which (you say) I deny to Children.  Mr. Ive's. 
THis is all one with your first Absurdity, & therefore the same Answer will serve it; for was not this your first Absurdity that you said followed denying infants baptism, viz. That the Children of the Devil's servants under the Law, had better means of grace conferred upon them, than the Children of the best servants of God have. And what do you say more now? For what difference is there between believers, and their infants, and God's best servants, and their infants? And what difference is there between the Children of the Devil's servants, and the Children of those in whom the Prince of the air ruleth? etc. And what difference is there between circumcising the Children of the Devil's servants under the Law, and circumcising the Children of those in whom the Prince of the air ruled, etc.  
But yet a word to this, though it be one with the former: First, how doth my opinion make them, Viz. believing Parents, and their infants, worse than Heathens, and their infants under the Law? since by your own confession neither the Heathen, nor his infant was to be Circumcised, till he, Viz. the Heathen, had acknowledged the true God, so that then he feased to be a Heathen. In like manner therefore as the Converts to the Jews Religion, were they and their children to partake of all the privileges of the Law, upon obedience of all the Commands of God in the Law: so all Converts to the Christian Religion, and their Children, upon obedience to all the Commands in the Gospel, shall be made partakers of the privileges of the Gospel: But now if God hath not Commanded believers infants to be baptised, nor promised any privilege to their baptism in infany, nor threatened any detriment to those infants that wanted it, as he did to infants that wanted Circumcision, he told their Parents that that soul should be cut off from the people. I say, if there be neither Precept for baptism of infants, nor Promise of Privilege to their infant's baptism, nor detriment threatened to the want of it, than you rather quarrel and find fault with God (because he did not make a Law for believers infants to be baptised) then with me; and because he did not promise them some favour that were baptised in their infancy, and impose some penalty upon those infants that were not so baptised. Now indeed if you had showed us any such thing, than you had made good your charge; but till you do so, you (as I have said) rather quarrel with God for not making such a Law, then with me for not keeping of it. And whereas you say, I deny infants the seal; You are first to show where baptism is called a seal, or else to deny them baptism, is not to deny them a seal. 2 You must show us, if baptism be a seal, whether God did any where command us to set it upon infants: And 3 in what place of the Child it must be set; for we know in the Law it was set upon the foreskin of their privy members. This you must do before you can fasten any Absurdity upon me, in denying a seal to infants.  
You come now to remember me of somewhat that I said at your house, Viz. You did run in a round when you said Children had a right to the Ordinance that was profitable every way, and therefore aught to be baptised; and you tell me, that  Mr. Kellie. 
MY saying you did run in a round, did contradict myself, and give away my cause.  Mr. Ive's. 
TO this I answer, that this is sooner said, then proved, Viz. That I gave away the Cause; but however, I perceive that you would be willing to be counted a ridiculous Disputant, and so ridiculous as circular disputing is accounted in Schools, so that I would but give away my cause, which is not mine, but the Lord Christ's. This appears plainly, for you say that I told you, you run in a circle; which you do not in the least endeavour to vindicate yourself from, but say by this I gave away my cause. But if you had urged all that I had faid at that time, it would not so appear; for when you argued, That if infants had a right to the Ordinance that was profitable every way, than they had a right to baptism: But they had a right to that Ordinance that was profitable every way. Ergo. I did then answer, by distinguishing of the terms of the major Proposition, Viz. What you meant by the Ordinance that was profitable every way: (I then said) if you meant Circumcision, than you run in a circle, because that was the thing denied in the former Sillogism, Viz. That they that had a right to Circumcision, had a right to baptism, which you endeavoured to prove, by saying, They that had a right to the Ordinance profitable every way, had a right to baptism. If by this you meant Circumcision, than you did but run round, and no way prove the thing denied, but in effect said it over again. I further said, That if by the Ordinance that was profitable every way, you meant baptism, than I denied the Sillogism; for than it must have run thus, They that have a right to baptism, have a right to baptism: Indeed I should have had so much respect to your grey hairs, that I should not have mentioned this your weakness, had you not in your Paper both mentioned it, and gloried in it, as though thereby you had made me give away my Cause. And that I did at your house detect your false Logic after this manner, as I have laid it down. I shall appeal to those Gentlemen that are well learned in the Rules of discourses, that were then at your house, and to whom I did then appeal in the same case.  
You proceed to more Reasons for infants-baptism, if I may so call them without giving away my cause again. The first is,  Mr. Kellie. 
BEcause they are in Covenant, which you would prove by Deut. 29.10. to 15. Deut. 30.11, 12, 13. Rom. 1.7.10.  
From hence you argue, that If they are in Covenant, they may be baptised.  Mr. Ive's. 
I Deny the Consequence, for by this rule Moses might have baptised as well as circumcised, if a bare being in the Covenant were a reason why they should baptise; but you must remember; that it is the Command of Christ that we look at; and if he had not commanded believers to be baptised, their being believers would not have justified their baptism: So if it were granted that infants were in the Covenant, what reason is this why they should be baptised, if God hath not commanded it? Do you not here open a door for will-worship, and other Popish fooleries? For may not they say they do them because they are in Covenant? Further, do you not here sin because grace abounds? For is God so good as to place our infants in Covenant with himself, must we therefore go take the holy name of God in vain, and sprinkle water upon their faces for a seal, as though we doubted whether God would keep his Covenant, unless we sealed it with a seal of our own making? But to the Text. First, if you look Deut. 1.39. you will find the Covenant here is not the same that was made with them when they came out of Egypt; for he saith, It is a Covenant BESIDES the Covenant he made then. 2 Compare but Vers. 10. to Vers. 12. and you will find that they stood that day before the Lord, that they MIGHT enter into Covenant, etc. Now than this could not be the Covenant made with Abraham, because that was confirmed, and Israel had it sealed to them long before; neither was it the Covenant made when they came out of Egypt, if so, than it could not be the Covenant that your seal you talk of did belong unto. 2 It could not be the Covenant of grace by Jesus Christ, unless you say there was two Covenants of grace, Viz. one made with them before they went into Egypt, and another after their coming out of Egypt: Now if this was not a Covenant of grace by Christ, spoken of Deut. 29. what doth it avail to the matter in hand? unless you say they that are in any Covenant have a right to baptism. And if you say it was a Covenant of grace by Jesus Christ, that is here mentioned, then pray consider what follows, that the Covenant of grace by Jesus Christ was made with them, that (as the 4 verse saith) The Lord had not given a heart to perceive, nor eyes to see, nor ears to hear unto that day. So that whereas you have been telling of us a of Covenant with believers and their seed all this while; you now come to tell us of a Covenant made with unbelievers, and their seed, for so were these at the time of the making of it: So that if your Logic be good, Viz. Believers and their infants are in Covenant, therefore they and their infants must be baptised. And the Text you bring to prove it, saith the same of unbelievers, then by your own Text, infidels and their infants may be baptised: But the Text you bring saith the same of unbelievers. Ergo. That the Text saith, this Covenant was made with unbelievers, compare Deut. 29.4. with Rom. 11.8. where speaking of the Jew's not believing in Christ, he saith, God (as it is written) alluding to this very Text, Deut. 29.4.) had given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear unto this day: And yet these are the believers whom you say are in Covenant, and therefore their infants must be baptised. But I confess I do not wonder at this, because most of them whose infants you baptise, are such believers, if I may so call them, as have not a heart to perceive, nor eyes to see, to this very day, else they would not receive for doctrine the traditions of men, and leave the plain way of Christ. You add, though to as little purpose as before, Deut. 30.11, 12. & Rom. 10.6, 7, 8. where (I confess) the Apostle alluding to the forecited place of Deuteronomy, saith, that the word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and heart, even the word of faith which he preached; and therefore the righteousness of faith he tells us is this, Vers. 9, 10. That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. You bid me compare this Text with Deut. 29. which I much wonder at, since I do not know any two Texts in all the Bible that have more disparity; for in the one place it's said, They had not a heart to believe; and in the other it is said, With the heart man believeth. Again, as this Text hath no affinity with the former, so, it hath no affinity to the matter in hand; for to what purpose do you cite a Text that speaks of believers who profess Christ with their mouths, and believe him in their hearts, to justify the baptism of infants, that never opened their mouths for Christ? Truly Sir, were it not that I am relieved with this saying, Opere in longo fas est obrepere somnum, I should despair of having any thoughts of charity towards a man that professeth himself (as you do) both a Christian, and a Scholar, and yet reason at this rate.  
You add a second Argument, and say, that  Mr. Kellie. 
BEcause they are in Covenant, the initiating token of the Covenant must needs be theirs.  Mr. Ive's. 
I Answer, That here you have not concluded the terms of the Question, therefore I may deny the whole Argument.  
2 But further, If by the initiating token of the Covenant you mean baptism, let me see then how you can call this a second Argument, except you tell the first twice over? For was not this the Argument that went before? Viz. They that are in the Covenant have a right to baptism; and is not the second the same word for word, if by the token of the Covenant you mean baptism; therefore the answer to the first is also an answer to that you call a second. And whereas you say that the Text, Gen. 17. tells us that every Manchild had the token of the Covenant, because they were in the Covenant; why I pray had not the women-childrens the token of the Covenant? were not they in the Covenant? Can you deny it? and yet you see they were not circumcised: And were not the males in the Covenant (as I have said once and again) as soon as they were born, why were they denied the the token of it till eight days old? they might have died, as doubtless many of them did in this intervaile of time between their birth and the eighth day: Therefore you see that infants being in the Covenant, could be no Argument to prove their Circumcision, till the time God appointed, though their lives had lain upon it. In the like manner all your talking of infants being in the Covenant, cannot lawfully justify their baptism, till the time comes that God commands it: And this kept female infants from Circumcision, Viz. because God had not commanded it. Although they were in the Covenant, yet you see they were denied the token of the Covenant.  
You urge another Text, which is Ezek. 37.25. where God promises by his Prophet, that The Tribes of Israel shall be joined together, and shall dwell in their own Land they and their Children, and their children's Children for ever, under the Conduct of Christ their Princee in the latter days. And you say this proves infants should be baptised. Did ever any body infer thus from a Text? Israel and their Children shall come to dwell in their own land in the latter days, and Christ shall be their Prince. Ergo. The infants of believers must be baptised. This is the substance of the Text from whence you thus infer, as any body may see that doth but read the Chapter. But now, suppose this, that this were applicable to believing Gentiles, doth it not follow, that if the seed of the righteous, and their Children, and their children's Children for ever, should be baptised, that then we may baptise all the world, since they are all, and will be for ever, the seed of Noah, who was a faithful man?  
You tell us in the third place, that  Mr. Kellie. 
Infant's are included in the Command of baptism, because Christ saith, Luke 9.48. They that receive a little Child, receive Christ.  Mr. Ive's. 
MIght you not better have said, that this little Child was Christ, then have concluded that the little Child was included in the Command of baptism? May we not as well say, That the Converts were Commanded to baptise the Apostles, rather than the Apostles were commanded to baptise them, because Christ saith to his Apostles, Mat. 10.40. He that receiveth you, receiveth me. May not a man as well upon the other hand say, That he that refused the Apostles, refused to baptise the Apostles, as you may say the receiving, or non receiving of infants, is a receiving of them to, or a rejecting them from baptism.  
Again, He that receiveth an Angel of God, is said to receive God; may not a man as well plead from hence, Therefore Angels may be baptised, as you may, in saying, He that receiveth a little Child, receiveth Christ? Therefore a little Child must be baptised. And whereas you say, That a refusing to baptise infants, is a refusing to receive Christ. How strangely do you contradict yourself? Did not you say in the former part of your paper, That many that we baptised, were not inwardly and effectually called till afterwards? Now doth not this plainly prove, That we that refuse to baptise Children, do yet notwithstanding receive Christ; for what is it to be inwardly and effectually called, but to receive Christ?  
In the fourth place, you say, that  Mr. Kellie. 
THey are included in baptism, for whom Christ appears so much, as we find, Mark 10.13. Luke 18.15. which (you say) Luke saith were infants, etc.  Mr. Ive's. 
I Answer, You take great pains to prove that which nonce denies, That these that Christ took in his arms, were infants: But how do you prove that which is denied, That these infants were baptised by Christ. You say, That Christ reproved his Disciples for not suffering the infants to come to him. Which shows plainly, that baptising them was no part of their business that brought them: First, because if it were a Command of Christ to baptise infants, the Disciples that were his Messengers, were then ignorant of a great part of their Message, that they were to deliver in their Ministry. Or else 2 If they did know that it was their work, and Christ's Command to baptise infants, they were desperately wicked in keeping any from it: This was not only to break a Command, but to teach men so, and to be guilty of that abominable evil the Pharisees were guilty of, Viz. Of not entering into Heaven themselves, nor suffering others. This will follow, if to keep infants from baptism, be to keep them from Christ, as you would make it.  
But that they were not baptised when they came to Christ, appears because the Text saith, John 4.2. that Jesus himself baptised NOT, but his Disciples.  
And whereas you say,  Mr. Kellie. 
HAnds were laid upon them, by which greater things than baptism was done.  Mr. Ive's. 
I Answer, By the same rule you may give the bread and wine in the Sacrament, to infants, because greater things were done by laying on of hands, then eating bread, and drinking wine: And why do you not by this rule preach to Children in their Cradles, because greater wonders were wrought by laying on of hands, than ever were done by Preaching. Who sees not but this Argument is as strong for Preaching to infants, and giving the Lords Supper to infants, as it is for baptising infants? And yet though you allow them baptism, you deny them both the other Ordinances.  
You say, Christ blessed them, as well as laid hands on them, which (say you) is as much. if not more th●n baptism. And is not his blessing as much, if not more than your giving the Sacrament of the Supper to them? Why then do you deny them of it?  
You say,  Mr. Kellie. 
THat was a good reason for Christ to bless them, viz. Because the Kingdom of Heaven belonged to them, and therefore it must needs be a good reason for us to baptise them.  Mr. Ive's. 
I Answer, first, why this was not a good reason for CHRIST to baptise them, & yet the Scripture saith, He baptised none.  
2 Doth not infants right to the Kingdom of heaven entitle them to all other Ordinances, as well as baptism, since under the Gospel whoever were found to be members of a true Church by baptism, had also fellowship of all other Church-priviledges, except they had (by some scandalous evils) deprived themselves thereof; so that infants right to the Kingdom of Heaven, serves nothing for your present purpose.  
Your fifth Reason is,  Mr. Kellie. 
Infant's are branches of the true Olive, Rom. 11.17. Therefore they are included in the Command of baptism.  Mr. Ive's. 
I Answer, first by denying the antecedent; for the infants of believers are not branches of the Olive in the Text, but only such as did actually believe, and there is not the least mention made of their infants in the whole Chapter; for the 20 verse saith, That for want of faith the Jews were broke off, and by faith the Gentiles did stand; which faith is not to be found in your infants you plead for.  
2 To be branches by generation (if that were the sense of the Text) could not give them a right to baptism, because the Jews were natural branches, and yet that could not give them a right to baptism without faith.  
Your sixth Reason is,  Mr. Kellie. 
BEcause infants of believers are Abraham's seed, and so consequently members of Christ, Gal. 3.16. And baptism (you say) is an Ordinance of our incorporation into Christ, 1 Cor. 12.13. Therefore (you say) they that are members of Christ should not be denied that Ordinance.  Mr. Ive's. 
I Cannot but wonder at your presumption; doth the word of God any where say that the carnal seed of believers are members of Christ? Doth it not say the contrary, that even Abraham's own seed were not the Children of God, as they were his carnal seed, Rom. 9.7. Neither because they are the seed Abraham, are they Children, which is expounded, Vers. 8. That is (saith the Apostle) they which are the Children of the flesh, they are not the Children of God.  
2 Again, How dare you say that the natural seed of believers in their infancy, are the seed of Abraham? since that Abraham's own seed were under the Gospel no otherwise reckoned for his seed, then by believing, Gal. 3.7. Know ye therefore, that they which are of faith, the same are the Children of Abraham, v. 9 They which are of saith, are blessed with faithful Abraham: And what ever Abraham's seed, and the Proselytes seed were accounted under the Law, it makes not at all to your purpose, unless you prove God doth so account of them under the Gospel: And therefore the Apostle saith not of seeds, as to many; but to thy seed, which is Christ. So that by this which you cited out of Gal. 3.16. it appears the Promises were not made to the natural seed of believers, but unto Christ, or them that were Members of his mystical body by believing. And the Apostle tells them, That so many of them as had been baptised into Christ, had put on Christ, which was by making profession of Christ, which your infants do not; and therefore the same Apostle concludeth, That if they were Christ's, than they were Abraham's seed: Not if they were believers natural Children, that they upon any such consideration should be Heirs of the Promise.  
Your seventh reason is,  Mr. Kellie. 
THat infants may be baptised, because they are holy: Which you endeavour to prove from 1 Cor. 7.14.  Mr. Ive's. 
I Do deny that the holiness of these infants gave a right to baptism; for by the same rule the believers wife must be baptised, though she was an unbeliever; for the same Text saith, That the believers unbelieving wife was sanctified: And may I not as well say, That all that are sanctified in any sense may be baptised; as you may say, Because infants in some sense are holy, therefore they may be baptised.  
You further urge Gal. 2.15. which I believe you did mistake yourself in, as any body may see that shall but compare the Text with the matter in hand. To as little purpose you urge Dan. 8.24. where the Text saith, The King of fierce countenance should destroy the holy people: Therefore the infants were holy. May not a man as well say, from Dan. 12.7. where it's said, He shall scatter the power of the holy people; that therefore the infants had power? The like answer serves to Dan. 11.8.  
8 You say,  Mr. Kellie. 
THey are included in baptism, to whom all the promises of baptism belong.  
But the promises of baptism belong to infants, Acts 7.38, 39  Mr. Ive's. 
I Shall say nothing to this, but leave you to read over Acts 7.38, 39 and consider if the least promise be made relating to baptism, in any of those verses. But I am apt to think you meant Acts 2.38, 39 which is as little to your purpose, as the other; where the Apostle bids the Jews, Repent, and be baptised; where note, That if their being Abraham's natural seed would have given them a right to baptism, what need had they to have repent, in order to their baptism? He further saith, That the promise is to them, and their Children. To that I have formerly said, and proved, That in the Scripture Dialect many things may belong to a man's Children, that hath no respect to his infants, in the state of their infancy; for Christ tells the same people, Mat. 23.27. That he would have gathered their Children together, etc. Can any man think that Christ here means their infants in the Cradle. In like manner the Apostle concludes, That the promise was to them, and their Children, he plainly shows, that he did not mean their infants, but that God's promises should be made good to their Children upon the same terms that they were to them, which was upon their Repentance, Faith, and Baptism; and therefore he afterwards urgeth, That it was not only to them and their Children, but to all that were after off, even as many as the Lord our God should call.  
And now you conclude, and say,  Mr. Kellie. 
THus much for the proof of infant's baptism from Scripture precept.  Mr. Ives'. 
WHich if all the Scriptures you have urged, have any one Precept for infant's Baptism, I shall leave to judgement.  
You now come in the last place to prove infant's baptism from Scripture practice, and your first, is,  Mr. Kellie. 
THat they were all, viz. the infants of the Israelites baptised to Moses, in the cloud, and in the sea, 1 Cor. 10.2. Psal. 77.17.  Mr. Ive's. 
1 WHat's this to prove infants were baptised to Christ, if (one should grant) that in a sense they might be said to be baptised to Moses?  
2 How doth this saying, They were baptised to Moses, prove that infants were baptised to Moses? If you say, They were baptised to Moses, because they also came through the sea with their fathers: Then I demand in  
The last place, whether a man may not as well say, That their Cattle were baptised to Moses, because they also came through the sea with Moses? Let him that's least among you judge if this Text proves that infants were baptised in water in the name of Jesus, because that infants came through the red sea with Moses.  
Your second instance for the practice of infant's baptism, is laid down in a down right lame Argument, thus.  Mr. Kellie. 
THe Apostles practised what they were to preach: But they were to preach all that Christ commanded, Mat. ult. ult. But Christ commanded that they should suffer little Children to come to him, and not to forbid them, that he might lay his hands on them, and bless them: Therefore the Apostles practised this in suffering little Children to come to the Ordinance, and not forbidding them to that of baptism.  Mr. Ive's. 
TRuly I could wish that this Argument had been born a little sooner, that so it might have been at Oxford or Cambridge the last Comencement, because it is in a new mood and figure that was never heard of before in any of the Schools; it may be it might have purchased for you the good degree of a Prevaricator against the next year. But however, I fear a worse thing, that it is still born, and hath no strength in it.  
For may you not as well say, That the Apostles in all ages were commanded to bring Asses to Christ, because when he was upon the earth he did Command them so to do, because he had need of one, for so says the Text, Mat. 21.2, 3, 6. as say that because Christ when he was in person upon the earth, did bid his Disciples to let infants come to him, that therefore this was part of their Commission when Christ left the earth.  
But 2 May you not from hence as well command some of your Parish to go and fetch you an Ass, and bring him to you, as you may from this Text enjoin them to bring their Children to you for baptism, because they were enjoined to come to Christ for a blessing. What Command is this to bring my Children to you, because Christ commanded them to be brought to him, any more than it is for me to bring my Horse or my Ass to you, because Christ commanded one should be brought to him? But if this be a good Argument to justify infant's baptism, I wonder that any Clergy man of your opinion will go one foot.  
But more hath been spoken to this elsewhere, and fore I shall proceed to your third instance of the practice of infant's baptism, and that is, say you,  Mr. Kellie. 
WHole Houses, Cities, and Families were baptised. And for proof hereof you cite Acts 8.12. where the Text saith, That when they believed Phillip's preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, they were baptised both men and women.  Mr. Ive's. 
WHat man would urge this Text (but he that was minded to quit the field of this controversy) to prove the Apostles baptised the Samaritans infants? You say the whole City of Samaria was baptised, therefore you would make us believe they baptised infants, when the Text saith no such thing, but that They that RECEIVED THE WORD were baptised, and not the whole City, as you would have it. Again, you urge.  Mr. Kellie. 
THat the family of Cornelius and his near kindred were baptised, Acts 10.24, 44, 48. And the household of Stephanus, 1 Cor. 1.16. The Jailor, and all his, Acts 2.16.13. And Lydia and her household, Acts 16.15.  Mr. Ive's. 
TO the first of these I answer, That the Scripture no where saith that Cornelius had any infants baptised, but that those that Herd Peter's word, and had received the Holy Ghost, and spoke with tongues, and glorified God, Acts 10.46, 47, 48. were baptised, which Text you urge for infant's baptism. I shall appeal to all that shall seriously mind these words, whether there be any comparison between the persons baptised in that Text, and the infants that you baptise.  
Next you urge the household of Stephanus, that they were baptised, 1 Cor. 1.16. Hence you would infer infants were baptised. Now may not a man as well say, that because the Apostle saith, 1 Cor. 16.15. that The house of Stephanus addicted themselves to the Ministry of the Saints, that therefore infants in Stephanus house were addicted to minister to the Saints, as you may say, Stephanus his household were baptised, therefore infants in the house were baptised?  
Your next is Acts 16.33. where 'tis said, the Jailor and all his were baptised: Now may not a man as well say, that his infants in the Cradle believed the Apostles, and that the Apostles preached to infants in the Cradle, as you may imagine that infants were baptised, because the Jailor and all his were baptised? For the same Text that saith he and all his were baptised, doth also say, That the Apostles spoke unto him the word of the Lord, & to ALL that were in his house, vers. 32. And Vers. 34. it is said, That he (Viz. the Jailor) believed in God with All his house: And yet you presume to call this, as the rest, Scripture practice for infant-baptism.  
Your other instance is in the 15 Verse of the forecited Chapter, where we read that Lydia and her house were baptised, etc. You cannot from hence prove that Lydia was a married woman; for when women have husbands as the head of their families, the household is not usually known by the woman's name. 2 If she had been married, how do you prove she had any Children?  
3 If she had had Children, how do you prove she had any alive at this time; since it often times so falls out, that good people as well as bad may see all their Children go to the grave before them.  
But 4 If she had Children alive, how do you know but that the least of them were old enough to speak for themselves?  
5 And lastly, if she had any infant Children, how can you infer from the Text that she baptised them? If you say, because her house was baptised; I answer, That a man may as well say, as I said before, that the infants of Stephanus did minister to the Saints, because the household of Stephanus did minister to the Saints. You do urge several Texts to show that oftentimes in Scripture whole households do include their infants, as Gen. 14.16. Judges 9.16.18. 1 Kings 17.12, 13, 15. 1 Pet. 3.21. I shall not examine these Texts, whether you have urged them rightly, or no, because I agree with you, that often times in Scripture, we must from several reasons and circumstances conclude, that when it speaks of households, it includes infants: But if you cannot prove from any reason or circumstance in the Texts under debate, that it should here be so understood, than you have laboured all this while for that which satisfieth not; unless you will say, that always when the Scripture speaks of house, or household, it intends little infants, which you will not say. And again, you may perceive by what hath been said, that in these houses those that were baptised have enough to distinguish them from being infants, to any that have not put out the eyes of their understanding.  
You proceed, as though your conscience did convince you, that whatever you have talked of plain Scripture precept, and plain Scripture practice for infant's baptism, that there is no such thing in all the Scripture, because you say  Mr. Kellie. 
THat it is not expressed in the Scripture that women were admitted to breaking of bread, and yet (you say) we never question their right to that Ordinance, (You hereupon demand) why then should we question children's right to baptism?  Mr. Ive's. 
I Answer, First, that if we should do a thing that we had no plain rule for, will this justify you to do evil, because we do evil; and to walk in the dark without a plain rule, because we do so.  
But secondly, we have a plain rule for women's receiving the Lords Supper, 1 Cor. 11.28. Let a man examine himself; where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of the Common Gender, and Beza renders it quisque Which is as much as if the Apostle had said, Let EVERY ONE examine themselves, and so let them eat. Where have you such a plain Text as this for infant's baptism?  
Lastly, you urge, Col. 2.11, 12. where you say,  Mr. Kellie. 
IF that place doth not give Children a right to baptism, than the Apostle doth not write that which could satisfy either the Colossians, or the false Prophets that were for Circumcision. Your Reasons are, Because the false Prophets might have said, That the outward Circumcision of Children, did point and signify the inward Circumcision of the heart: But if this be taken away, what have Children now to signify the Circumsion of the heart?  Mr. Ive's. 
SO then, by this you would give us to understand, that the false Prophets could no way be answered unless the Apostle had granted baptism of infants, to signify that which Circumcision did before. To this I answer, That if Circumcision had signified the Circumcising of infants hearts, than the false Prophets might have pleaded thus, But I deny that it signified any such thing to or of infants: And therefore you said well when you said, The FALSE Prophets might say so, but I am sure no true Prophet ever said so.  
And again, If the question had been about infant's baptism, he could not have spoken that which had satisfied either the Colossians, or false Teachers, if he had not conformed his Answer thereto. But there is not the least noise of such a thing in the Text, as you or any body else that shall but view it, may perceive; for the Apostle says, Vers. 11. That they were circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, etc. Doth not this plainly show, that he doth strengthen the Colossians from returning to the beggarly Rudiments of the world, by the benefit which they received by putting off the sins of the flesh, which they could not obtain by cutting their flesh in Circumcision. And now he tells them not only the Argument of their being converted from sin, and made complete in Christ, should strengthen them from falling back to the Rudiments of the Law; but also, Vers. 12. their being buried with Christ in baptism, and their rising with him in baptism, through the faith of the operation of God, should so far engage them in the Christian Religion, that all the Philosophical deceits of men should never be able to turn them from it: And where is so much as one word to your purpose? I must needs say, That out of all the Texts you have pressed, I cannot see water enough to sprinkle upon the face of one Child.  
And whereas you tell me,  Mr. Kellie. 
I Might have saved you this labour, and myself too, if I had minded the Books of Dr. Featly, Mr. Martial, Mr. Gerce, Mr. Church, Mr. Cobbet, Mr. Baxter, Mr. Cook, Mr. Blake, Mr. Fuller, Mr. Sidenham, besides many other excellent men who have written in Latin, as Hossius, Calvin, Beza, Bullinger, and all the best lights in the Christian world full and clear against me.  Mr. Ive's. 
TO this I Answer, That you might have saved me a labour, if you had found out of all your Observations of these men, but one plain Command or example for infant's baptism, and given it me at your house, or sent it in your Paper, which makes me think, that either these men have said as little to the purpose as you, or else that you have minded them but a little, because you otherwise would have said more to the purpose, than I do perceive you have done.  
But 2 I have not lived without some observations of (if not all, yet) many of these men's works; for I have not as yet taken up any Opinion wherein I differ from you, or others, but I have seriously weighed it in the balance of the Sanctuary: And I have not declined the way of these men you name, nor any other, but when (I have upon serious examination found) that they have declined the footsteps of the Primitive Purity, either in Doctrine or Discipline.  
And whereas you talk of learned men, and fathers, and best Lights in the Christian world, that they are all against me; I tell you, that if God and his word be for me, I care not who is against me: And I tell you further, that I had rather have one Testimony from the word of God for my practice, than ten thousand of these Authors without it.  
I Shall therefore show you 

1 Plain Scripture Proof for believers baptism.  
2 Plain Example for it.  
3 Plain Command and Example for the manner of the Administration of it.  
4 And lastly, That the footsteps hereof (since you talk of learned and godly men) was not wholly defaced in the three first Centuries after the Apostles, nor then neither. Nay, a man may make a shift to know this was the practice, by those relics of it that remained in the Church of England, till the memory of man.    
That Christ our Lord Commands this, who we must hear in all things, or else we shall be destroyed, appears first from Mat. 28.19. Teach all Nations, baptising them, etc. Which most of your own Authors do acknowledge 
* See Mr. Baxter in his plain Scripture proof for Infant's baptism. p. 15.  (as I have showed) should be read, Make Disciples, baptising THEM, and not the Nations, as you would sometimes have it: Though at your house you granted the Text ought to be so Translated, as I have now rendered it; therefore you proceeded from hence to prove infants Disciples, which you could not have done, but by granting what I have said.  
The next Text is, Mark 16.16. He that believeth and is baptised, shall be saved, etc. Acts 10 48. And he (Viz. the Apostle) commanded them to be baptised with water (who were converted by his Preaching) in the name of the Lord Jesus. Mark 1.4. John did Preach the baptism of repentance, which could not be infant's baptism, Acts 2.38. Peter said, Repent and be baptised every one of you. Acts 22.16. Arise, and be baptised, and wash away thy sins.  
Secondly, We have plenty of Example of this in the Scripture, Rom. 6.4. We (Viz. believing Romans) are buried with him in baptism. Mat. 3.6. They were all baptised of John in Jordan, confessing their sins. Mark 1.9. Jesus was baptised of John in Jordan. Mat. 3.15. Acts 2.41. Then they that gladly received his word, were baptised, etc. Acts 8.12. When they did believe Philip's preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God, they were baptised both men and women. Acts 8.38. when the Eunuch professed faith, Vers. 37. 'tis said, Vers. 38. that Philip baptised him. Acts 9.18. Saul, when he was converted, the Text saith, He arose and was baptised. The Jailor, Acts 16.33. when he and his house believed, the Text says, He and all his were baptised. Acts 18.8. And Crispus the chief Buler of the Synagogue believed on the Lord with all his house. And many of the Corinthians hearing, believed, and were baptised. Acts 19.5. When they heard this, they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus.  
Thirdly, Command and Example in plain words for the manner of it, which was by dipping the person all over in the water, and not by sprinkling water upon the face, as the manner of the Nation is; This appears by the Command, Make Disciples (for so it must be read) of all Nations, dipping them into the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit; for that is the English signification of the word: And I desire you to show me where baptizo signifies aspersio in all the Bible. And the like Command you have, Mark 16.16. But that you may know that dipping and not sprinkling, was the Command of Christ, and the Practice of the Primitive times, however it is now laughed at, appears by the Practice of Christ himself, Mat. 16.3. Jesus when he was baptised went UP OUT of the water, etc. Mark 1.5. They were all baptised of him in the River Jordan, etc. John 2.23. John was baptised in Aenon near to Salim, because there was Much water there, and They Came and were baptised. Acts 8.38, 39 'tis said, Vers. 38. that They (viz. Philip and the Eunuch) went both down into the water: And when Philip had baptised him, it is said, Vers. 39 That they came out of the water. I shall appeal to all  men, whether baptising men and women in Rivers, upon their professing faith in Christ, doth not better accord with these Scriptures, then sprinkling water upon the face of infants.  
Besides, Fourthly, This was the Practice of the Church long after the Apostles, as appears first by what  
Socrates Scholasticus in his Ecclesiastical History reports of Constantine the Great, That though he was the Son of Helena a zealous Professor of Christ, lib. 1. cap. 13. yet he was not baptised till he was 65 years old, which was after he had left Constantinople, and Helenopolis, and came to Nicomedia, where dwelling in a Manor without the Town-walls, he was baptised into the faith of Christ, in which baptism he greatly rejoiced, lib. 1. cap. 26.  
Again, the same Author saith, That in Alexandria the Holy Scriptures were read and interpreted by the UNBAPTIZED, which he calls Cathecumenists, aswell as by them that were baptised; which (saith he) was contrary to the Custom of other Countries and Churches, who did not suffer any to do so till they were baptised, Socrates, lib. 5. cap. 2●. Which plainly shows, that infant's baptism was not a tradition of the Apostles; for if it had, this Church of Alexandria, that had for the space of some hundred years been converted to the faith of Christ, would by this time (if all believers had baptised their infants, as the Church of England, and others do now adays, one Generation after another) have been without any that were able to read and interpret the Scriptures before baptism, as we see the Nation of Engl: now is, a few (Anabaptists Children so called) excepted, otherwise where are your Oathecumenists, that are able to read & understand the holy Script: before you baptise them? And that they in those times did follow the way of Christ in baptising, and not your Basin way, appears; for the same Socrates, lib. 7. cap. 4. speaks of a Jew which was baptised by Soticus, Bishop of Constantinople, who, saith he, as soon as he was [TAKEN OUT OF THE WATER] his Palsy left him. Can it be said so of any that you baptise, that they are taken out of the water?  
The same Author further saith, lib. 7. cap. 17. of a Jew that was to be baptised upon his profession of faith, by Paulus the Novatian Bishop, that all things were provided for his baptism, among which he saith The Bishop did provide him a linen Garment, which was to no purpose if he had not been to dip the person in water: And Bellarmive himself acknowledges, that in old time they had women in the Church, whom they called to the Office of Deaconnesses, to attend upon the women that were baptised, with baptising .  
And Jerome Translating the Lamentation of Origen, saith, That Origen lamented and bewailed the Vow that [HE MADE WHEN HE WAS BAPTISED,] in that he had now by sin walked contrary to it. However Origen is himself thought to favour this practice afterwards, yet those things are but the supposed works of Origen, and it's hard to say whether it was his or no.  
Again, Eusebius who writ the Ecclesiastical History of the first 300 years after Christ; though he tells us of all the most observable passages of those times, yet he doth not so much as mention the baptising of one infant, but doth often times mention things in favour to the baptising of men, upon profession of faith; as appears lib. 7. cap. 8. of his Ecclesiastical story, where he relates of a man that heard the Questions that was by the Minister asked of persons to be baptised, and [THEIR ANSWERS TO THEM,] fell down and wept at the Ministers feet, because the baptism that he had received of the Heretics, was not like the baptism [THAT WAS IN USE THAN,] which plainly showeth, That at this time the Churches did not receive men to baptism, but upon profession of faith; and also, that it was no Apostolical Custom to baptise infants. Further, Beza himself upon Acts 17.3. saith, That they professed in baptism the doctrine propounded by John. And besides this, how often have Mr. Tombs, and Mr. Den, and others, produced sufficient proof that this practice of baptising infants, was not so much the Custom of the Primitive times, as you imagine.  
That memorable instance of Gregory Nazianzen, whose father was a Bishop, and his mother a virtuous woman, yet himself was not baptised till he came from Athens, where (as Socrates saith, lib. 4. cap. 21.) he had spent much of his time in the study of Rhetoric.  
Again, That other instance of Mr. Tombs out of Hugo Grotius, in his Annotations upon Mat. 19.14. That even chrysostom, though born of Christian parents, was not baptised till he was 21 years of age. The same Grotius adds, That the Canon of the Synod of Neosesarea held in the year 315, determined that a woman with Child might be baptised, because baptism did not reach the fruit of her womb, because in the confession made in baptism, EVERY ONES FREE CHOICE IS showed. He adds further, That many of the Greeks to his time did defer the baptising little ones, till they could themselves make a confession of their faith.  
Again, Was not the Image of this Custom to be seen in the practice of the Church of England, when they asked, What was required of persons TO BE BAPTISED, and the answer was, Repentance whereby they forsake sin, and Faith whereby they believe the Promises of God: Which afterwards by changing the Command of God into a Tradition of their own, they did use to ask the Godfathers, and Godmothers, a conceit that was never heard of till the Churches had apostatised from their Primitive Purity.  
And as for the manner of baptising, by dipping the Person in the water, however it is now laughed at, you see it was not only that which as I have said, Christ and his Apostles Commanded and Practised but it was used in the Church for a long time after; & the Church of England did look upon it as a more commendable way, in as much as they in their Service-Book did place dipping before sprinkling, and therefore they said, the persons DIPPED, or sprinkled, etc. Now may I not better say, That if you had looked over the Command of Christ, and the Practice of the Apostle, and traced the footsteps of the Primitive Practice in this Point, for 300 years after, you might have saved me a labour, and yourself too, than you could say, I might have saved you a labour if I had looked over the writings of a few men that you have named, who have not in all their Books cited either a Command or Example for infants sprinkling, but only some farfetched non-sequitors, which most of your Paper is filled withal.  
I shall now conclude, leaving what I have said in Answer to your Arguments for your Practice, and the plain Scripture I have urged for my own Practice, to your judgement, and the judgement of all to whom this shall come, and desire that like the Bereans, you and all others that shall peruse this, would search whether what I have said in the premises, be of God, or no; and if in your Conscience you or any else do so fied it to be, take heed then what you do in opposing of it, lest you be found sighters against God. And what hath fallen from my pen that is not according to God's word, I shall desire that you or any else would show it me, either in word or writing and it shall thankfully be received as a favour, by  
SIR, Your Friend to Serve you. JER: IVES.  
FINIS.