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 Jewes Religion were they and their children to partake of all the priviledges 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 priviledges of the Gospel But now if God hath not Commanded believers infants to be baptized nor promised any priviledge to their baptism in infany nor threatned any detriment to those infants that wanted it as he did to infants that wanted Circumcision he told their Parents that that soule should be cut off from the people I say if there be neither Precept for baptism of infants nor Promise of Priviledg to their infants baptism nor detriment threatned to the want of it then you rather quarrel and find fault with God because he did not make a Law for believers infants to be baptized then with me and because he did not promise them some favour that were baptized in their infancy and impose some penalty upon those infants that were not so baptized Now indeed if you had shewed us any such thing then you had made good your charge but till you doe so you as I have said rather quarrell with God for not making such a Law then with me for not keeping of it And whereas you say I deny infants the seale You are first to shew where baptism is called a seale or else to deny them baptism is not to deny them a seale 2 You must shew us if baptism be a seale 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 fore-skin of their privy members This you must doe before you can fasten any Absurdity upon me in denying a seale 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 ought to be baptized and you tell me that Mr. Kellie MY saying you did run in a round did contradict my selfe 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 Christs This appears plainly for you say that I told you you run in a circle which you doe not in the least indeavour to vindicate your self 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 then 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 tearms of the major Proposition Viz. What you meant by the Ordinance that was profitable every way I then said if you meant Circumcision then 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 then 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 then I denied the Sillogism for then 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 gray haires that I should not have mentioned this your weaknesse 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 Logick after this manner as I have laid it down I shall appeale to those Gentlemen that are well learned in the Rules of discourses that were then at your house and to whom I did then appeale in the same case You proceed to more Reasons for infants-infants-baptism if I may so call them without giving away my canse 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 baptized Mr. Ive's I Deny the Consequence for by this rule Moses might have baptized as well as circumcised if a bare being in the Covenant were a reason why they should baptize but you must remember that it is the Command of Christ that we look at and if he had not commanded believers to be baptized 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 baptized if God hath not commanded it Doe you not here open a door for will-worship and other Popish fooleries For may not they say they doe them because they are in Covenant Further doe you not here sin because grace abounds For is God so good as to place our infants in Covenant with himselfe must we therefore goe take the holy name of God in vaine and sprinkle water upon their faces for a seale as though we doubted whether God would keep his Covenant unlesse we sealed it with a seale of our owne 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 Aegypt 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 c. Now then 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 Aegypt if so then it could not be the Covenant that your seale you talk of did belong unto 2 It could not be the Covenant of grace by Jesus Christ unlesse you say there was two Covenants of grace Viz. one made with them before they went into Aegypt and
man as well upon the other hand say That he that refused the Apostles refused to baptize 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 Angell of God is said to receive God may not a man as well plead from hence Therefore Angels may be baptized as you may in saying He that receiveth a little Child receiveth Christ Therefore a little Child must be baptized And whereas you say That a refusing to baptize infants is a refusing to receive Christ How strangely do you contradict your selfe Did not you say in the former part of your paper That many that we baptized were not inwardly and effectually called till afterwards Now doth not this plainly prove That we that refuse to baptize Children doe 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 c. Mr. Ive's I Answer You take great paines to prove that which nones denies That these that Christ tooke in his armes were infants But how doe you prove that which is denied That these infants were baptized by Christ You say That Christ reproved his Disciples for not suffering the infants to come to him Which shewes plainly that baptizing them was no part of their businesse that brought them First because if it were a Command of Christ to baptize 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 Christs Command to baptize infants they were desperately wicked in keeping any from it This was not onely to break a Command but to teach men so and to be guilty of that abominable evill the Pharisees were guilty of Viz. Of not entring 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 baptized when they came to Christ appears because the Text saith John 4.2 that Jesus himselfe baptized NOT but his Disciples And whereas you say Mr. Kellie HAnds were laid upon them by which greater things then 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 doe you not by this rule preach to Children in their Cradles because greater wonders were wrought by laying on of hands then 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 baptizing infants And yet though you allow them baptism you deny them both the other Ordinances You say Christ blessed them as well as layd hands on them which say you is as much if not more thâ—n baptism And is not his blessing as much if not more then your giving the Sacrament of the Supper to them Why then doe you deny them of it You say Mr. Kellie THat was a good reason for Christ to blesse them viz. Because the Kingdome of Heaven belonged to them and therefore it must needs be a good reason for us to baptize them Mr. Ive's I Answer first why this was not a good reason for CHRIST to baptize them yet the Scripture saith He baptized none 2 Doth not infants right to the Kingdome of heaven intitle 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 evills deprived themselves thereof so that infants right to the Kingdome of Heaven serves nothing for your present purpose Your fifth Reason is Mr. Kellie INfants 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 onely 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 Jewes 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 Jewes were naturall 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 Abrahams 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 presumtion doth the word of God any where say that the carnall seed of believers are members of Christ Doth it not say the contrary that even Abrahams owne seed were not the Children of God as they were his carnall 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 naturall seed of believers in their infancy are the seed of Abraham since that Abrahams own seed were under the Gospel no otherwise reckoned for his seed then by believing Gal. 3.7 Know yee therefore that they which are of faith the same are the Children of Abraham v. 9. They which are of saith are blessed with faithfull Abraham And what ever Abrahams seed and the Proselites seed were accounted under the Law it makes not at all to your purpose unlesse 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 naturall seed of believers but unto Christ or them that were Members of his mysticall body by believing And the Apostle tels them That so many of them as had been baptized into Christ had put on Christ which was by making profession of Christ which your infants doe not and therefore the same Apostle concludeth That if they were Christs then they were Abrahams seed Not if they were believers naturall Children that they upon any such consideration should be Heires of the Promise Your seventh reason is
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 Baptized is Mr. Kellie's first Argument IF all Nations are commanded to be baptized then Infants are commanded to be baptized But all Nations are commanded to be baptized Ergo Infants are commanded to be baptized Mr. Ive's Answer I Doe 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 Goe and teach all Nations c. I would ask any man that knowes what an Argument is whether by your Rule of reasoning viz. All Nations are commanded to be baptized 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 dayes 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 doe 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 anothers 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 Baptize 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 dayes old shall call him blessed And because all Nations shall say wherefore hath God done this to Israel therefore Infants of eight dayes old shall say so And because that Christ saith that his fathers house shall be called of all Nations a house of prayer that therefore Infants of eight dayes old are commanded to call it so And because David saith all Nations compassed him about therefore Infants of eight dayes old compassed him about And because it 's prophesied that all Nations shall call Israel blessed therefore Infants of eight dayes old shall call them blessed I say May I not as well reason thus as you may reason If all Nations may be baptized Infants may 2 I yet Answer further as before at our meeting That this Argument pleads as much for the baptizing of all Turks and Infidells because as Turks and Infidells 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 believ'd 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 baptize a Turk or an Indian unlesse he convert and professe 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 baptized then we may be baptized But all Nations may be baptized Therefore we may See therefore how this Argument doth interfere with your owne practice 3 Again You seem to plead for the baptism of believers Children onely but your Argument pleads for unbelievers Children as much or more then believers for if that believers Children must be baptized because they are a part of Nations who sees not but by the same rule unbelievers Children may be baptized because they are a greater part of the Nations then 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 baptized and not for all the Nations as appears by the Originall word which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make Disciples 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptizing 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 Gods people are taught of God Ergo. They are Disciples Mr. Ive's Answer I Answer first by distinguishing of the Tearm 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 dayes old are not taught neither doe 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 dayes old were taught and learned then the Command the Disciples had to teach all Nations proves that they taught infants of eight dayes old and that they learned instruction 2 This is a Prophesie that all Israels Children should be taught of God and not a Prophesie that they should all be taught so as to learn in your sence which is the thing you are to prove for if they should all be so taught then they should all of them be saved 3 If you shall say the Prophesie respects the believers Children whether Jewes or Gentiles that they shall be all taught c. yet it doth not say they shall be taught in their Cradle or at eight dayes old which you must prove because you say infants are Disciples 4 How soon doe you lose the tearms 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-children Whereas indeed the Scripture tells us of all Abrahams Children that were so by believing and not by virtue of their carnall discent from Abraham Gal. 3.7 You further goe 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 learne 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 tearm of the minor Proposition 2 If by all thy Children shall be taught of God the meaning should be as you say that the naturall seed of the believers bodies should be all taught of God inwardly and effectually in their infancy then to what purpose doe you teach them to be converted when they come to years 3 If all the naturall Children of believers be inwardly and effectually taught of God then you must hold falling from grace totally and finally or else conclude that all the naturall 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 goe 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 tearm ALL and put your Argument into indefinite tearms But I presume by infants you mean all the naturall seed of believers according to your practice in baptizing 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 Lawes Deut. 11.1 2. But if they had been inwardly and effectually taught then the Lord must needs have spoken with them and if they were taught it must be in Gods 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 effectuall 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 owne what therefore should hinder us from hoping that they shal be all sayed 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 justifie 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 Kingdome of Heaven So that the Kingdome 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 eternall life there is no hope of salvation But without the inward and effectuall teaching of God in infants there is no knowledge of God in Christ Ergo. Without the inward and effectuall 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 tearm 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 eternall 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 eternall life that knowes 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 call'd upon to doe neither 4 Again They that know God in Jesus Christ are alwayes in the Scripture distinguished from those that know him not If so then all Children in their infancy know God in Jesus Christ or else you must shew how some infants of eight dayes old may be judged to know him and others may be judged to be ignorant of him If you say you cannot distinguish then I say you have as much reason to baptize a Turks Child at eight dayes 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 shew to believers Children Again if they viz. the infants of believers doe know God in Jesus Christ in their infancy how comes many of them so wicked when they come to years Doe you not here strongly smell of Arminianisme 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 't is 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 arived above the stature of intants of eight dayes old In the like manner must we understand Christ John 17. This is life eternall that
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 neds have relation to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unlesse there shall not be a separation between all Nations at the last day This Enallage generis where the Masculine Gender is put with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is usuall 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 sheweth together with the attestation of common sense have no knowledge between good and evill 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 evill they shall goe in thither and unto them will I give it and they shall possesse it Isai 7.14 15 16. Therefore the Lord himselfe shall give you a signe 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 evill and choose the good For before the Child shall know to refuse the evill 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 evill for they are such as had either relieved Christ in his necessity or refused to doe so neither of which agreeth to infants for would it not be ridiculous to imagine that our Lord Christ should say to the infants Goe yee cursed into everlasting fire for I was hungry and yee 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 goe 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 himselfe should have the seale of the rightousnesse 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 Doe deny this whole Sillogism because first there is not one of the tearms 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 baptizing 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 it selfe for you say He did once Command and never afterwards forbid that infants should have the seale and token of the Covenant and yet you say presently after That Circumcision was taken away then it folowes that the seale of it was prohibited and the use of it forbidden is not this a palpable contradiction For what was the seale 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 willfully 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 Gods people have a right to that Ordinance that was profitable every way Ergo. The Children of Gods 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 doe 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 doe you plead for the infants of believers so much May you not as well plead for the unbelieving Jewes and their infants by the same reason thus They that had a right to circumcision have a right to baptism but the Jewes 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 your selfe and then 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 baptize a Jew though he did never believe You now come to scare me with great words since you cannot doe it by Arguments and this you indeavour to doe by telling me of fearfull 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 then the Children of the Devills servants under the Law had better means of grace confer'd upon them
Mr. Kellie THat infants may be baptized because they are holy Which you indeavour to prove from 1 Cor. 7.14 Mr. Ive's I Doe deny that the holinesse of these infants gave a right to baptism for by the same rule the believers wife must be baptized 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 baptized as you may say Because infants in some sense are holy therefore they may be baptized You further urge Gal. 2.15 which I believe you did mistake your selfe 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 Jewes Repent and be baptized where note That if their being Abrahams naturall seed would have given them a right to baptism what need had they to have repented 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 mans 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 c. 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 shewes that he did not mean their infants but that Gods promises should be made good to their Children upon the same tearms that they were to them which was upon their Repentance Faith and Baptism and therefore he afterwards urgeth That it was not onely 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 infants baptism from Scripture precept Mr. Ives's WHich if all the Scriptures you have urged have any one Precept for infants Baptism I shall leave to judgement You now come in the last place to prove infants baptism from Scripture practice and your first is Mr. Kellie THat they were all viz. the infants of the Israelites baptized 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 baptized to Christ if one should grant that in a sense they might be said to be baptized to Moses 2 How doth this saying They were baptized to Moses prove that infants were baptized to Moses If you say They were baptized 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 baptized 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 baptized in water in the name of Jesus because that infants came through the red sea with Moses Your second instance for the practice of infants baptism is laid downe 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 blesse them Therefore the Apostles practiced 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 Schooles 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 doe because he had need of one for so sayes 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 goe and fetch you an Asse and bring him to you as you may from this Text injoyne them to bring their Children to you for baptism because they were injoyned 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 then it is for me to bring my Horse or my Asse to you because Christ commanded one should be brought to him But if this be a good Argument to justifie infants baptism I wonder that any Clergy man of your opinion will goe one foot But more hath been spoken to this elsewhere and fore I shall proceed to your third instance of the practice of infants baptism and that is say you Mr. Kellie WHole Houses Cities and Families were baptized And for proof hereof you cite Acts 8.12 where the Text saith That when they believed Phillips preaching the things concerning the kingdome of God they were baptized both men and women Mr. Ive's WHat man would urge this Text but he that was minded to quit the field of this controversie to prove the Apostles baptized the Samaritans infants You say the whole City of Samaria was baptized therefore you would make us believe they baptized infants when the Text saith no such thing but that They that RECEIVED THE WORD were baptized 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 baptized Acts 10.24 44 48. And the houshold of Stephanus 1 Cor. 1.16 The Jaylor and all
his Acts 2.16.13 And Lydia and her houshold Acts 16.15 Mr. Ive's TO the first of these I answer That the Scripture no where saith that Cornelius had any infants baptized but that those that Heard Peters word and had received the Holy Ghost and spake with tongues and glorified God Acts 10.46 47 48. were baptized which Text you urge for infants baptism I shall appeale to all that shall seriously mind these words whether there be any comparison between the persons baptized in that Text and the infants that you baptize Next you urge the houshold of Stephanus that they were baptized 1 Cor. 1.16 Hence you would infer infants were baptized 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 houshold were baptized therefore infants in the house were baptized Your next is Acts 16.33 where 't is said the Jaylor and all his were baptized 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 baptized because the Jaylor and all his were baptized For the same Text that saith he and all his were baptized doth also say That the Apostles spake 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 Jaylor 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 baptized c. You cannot from hence prove that Lydia was a married woman for when women have husbands as the head of their families the houshold is not usually known by the womans name 2 If she had been married how doe you prove she had any Children 3 If she had had Children how doe 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 goe to the grave before them But 4 If she had Children alive how doe 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 baptized them If you say because her house was baptized 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 houshold of Stephanus did minister to the Saints You doe urge severall Texts to shew that oftentimes in Scripture whole housholds doe 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 severall reasons and circumstances conclude that when it speaks of housholds 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 then you have laboured all this while for that which satisfieth not unlesse you will say that alwayes when the Scripture speaks of house or houshold 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 baptized 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 infants 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 Childrens right to baptism Mr. Ive's I Answer First that if we should doe a thing that we had no plain rule for will this justifie you to doe evill because we doe evill and to walk in the dark without a plain rule because we doe so But secondly we have a plain rule for womens receiving the Lords Supper 1 Cor. 11.28 Let a man examine himselfe 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 examin themselves and so let them eat Where have you such a plain Text as this for infants baptism Lastly you urge Col. 2.11 12. where you say Mr. Kellie IF that place doth not give Children a right to baptism then the Apostle doth not write that which could satisfie 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 signifie the inward Circumcision of the heart But if this be taken away what have Children now to signifie 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 unlesse the Apostle had granted baptism of infants to signifie that which Circumcision did before To this I answer That if Circumcision had signified the Circumcising of infants hearts then 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 infants 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 sayes Vers 11. That they were circumcised with the circumcision made without hands by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh c. Doth not this plainly shew that he doth strengthen the Colossians from returning to the beggerly 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 onely the Argument of their being converted from sin and made compleat 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
they know thee the onely 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 evill the like is said of Christ himself in his infancy Isa 7.14 15 16. How then can you imagin 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 goe 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 dye in as good a case as Disciples of a hundred years standing O miserable blindnesse the Text saith There shall not be in the New Jerusalem an infant of dayes and yet you bring this in favour to your eight dayes infants Again You say That infants dye in as good a condition as Disciples of a hundred years standing whereas the Text saith The Child shall dye a hundred years old I pray how many such infants doe you baptize 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 baptize for fear they should be damned which some of your cloath have allowed making the sprinkling water upon their face a cause of their salvation rather then the knowledge of God in Christ that you now plead for But you goe on and tell us Mr. Kellie THat if we judge infants shall be saved then 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 circumcisiō 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 eigth 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 forbid the circumcising of females Let me tell you then that in as much as God hath prescribed believing to be the time of baptizing it will be found a sin to doe 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 baptize and add to your Church for the Text saith Then they that gladly received his word were baptized and the same day there was added to them about three thousand soules 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 baptized because they are no where called believers You now face about as though all were not safe in the Rear and goe 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 effectuall 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 Gods people have the great peace of God goe 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 Gods people you mean all their natural Children in their infancy as you must or else you say nothing to your purpose then I doe 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 then 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 naturall Children of believers are in this condition in their infancy what sin can deprive them of eternall life when they come to years unlesse 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 doe not reckon among the least of errors Again if believers naturall Children as such are thus priviledged as you speak of with this grace and peace then 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 naturall Children thus priviledged You goe on to a second Reason to prove the teaching in Isa 54. to be inward and effectuall teaching which what if it were granted doth it prove that this was to infants in the Cradle of eight dayes old But we have before shewed 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 effectuall teaching it were rather a judgement threatned then a mercy promised Mr. Ive's BElike then by this kind of reason when God teacheth
a people and they doe not learn his teaching is a judgement and not a mercy If this be true then they that are under your teaching and are not inwardly and effectually taught doe not live under mercies but judgements and so they doe not despise a mercy when they are not inwardly and effectually taught but a judgement The weight of this Reason is lighter then vanity Your third Reason that this must needs be inward and effectuall teaching is Mr. Kellie BEcause John brings it in as a proof of effectuall Teaching From whence you say the Argument may be thus framed THey that are drawne to the Father and come to the Son are effectually taught But they that are taught according to that Scripture Isa 54. are drawne 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 himselfe 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 dayes 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 shewing that more were taught and more heard then did learn and come to him You goe 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 doe 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 fullfilled what doe you preach for And if all believers Children both little and great know the Lord so as to need none to teach them then you must find out another Trade or else goe and teach among the Heathen for you judge all the Parish of Criplegate believers in as much as you baptize 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 then you must goe to Preach to the Infidells in America for by your own Text we have no need of you here I doe therefore charge all men with folly in the Parish of Criplegate that shall pay you a farthing for Preaching till you doe 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 goe 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 mothers breasts for these words When I was are unnecessarily supplied by the Translater and are not in the Originall and therefore we see that as well unbelievers as believers Children doe hope upon their mothers breast I wonder how any man in his right wits can say from this Text that David or any infant in their infancy doe 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 goe on and say Mr. Kellie THat infants are most humble therefore taught Mr. Ive's THe Text that you urge Luke 9.48 saith no 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 then the Disciples had no need to learn of Children because it cannot reasonably be supposed that infants in the Cradle should be taught more then those Master-builders that were to goe forth to teach others If this humility was naturall to them as to all Children before they come to have knowledge then 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 then 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 wisedome 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 effectuall 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 sence 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 spirituall birth and teaching as Solomon saith of the naturall Eccles 11.5 As thou knowest not which is the way of the Spirit nor how the bones doe 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 alwayes in infancy for some are called at the last houre and you baptize some who possibly are not effectually called till afterward Mr. Ive's INdeed you may say so of their spirituall birth for your tongue is your owne but the Scripture speaks of no such spirituall birth in infants as you doe imagine And you have answered your selfe and given a reason why you may not say of their spirituall birth as Solomon doth of their naturall 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 naturall birth for though Solomon saith We doe not know how the Children are formed in the womb yet he denies not but they are all formed in the womb But you as you doe not know how so you confesse you doe 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 houre 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 doe 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 c. You tell us That some that we baptize are not effectually taught till afterwards To this I answer That it justifieth us if they doe professe so to be when they are baptized For with the heart man doth believe and with the mouth confession is made to salvation Rom. 10.10 And so it would justifie you if that there were a confession of faith made at the time you did baptize and a life conformable thereunto which is all that we are to look after because it 's Gods 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 shew favour in the name of God and Christ are so many Gods and Christs as you can say they to whom we may give a cup of cold water in the name of a Disciple are Disciples Who seeth not the weaknesse 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 write that you sin not And ver 12. I write unto you little Children because your sins are forgiven I say if you doe mean such I doe 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 wandring up and downe 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 houre 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 doe you prove that they were believers infants But it will be a task too hard for you to doe either the one or the other You goe on to tell us Mr. Kellie THat you have five things more to say for infants Disciple-ship The first is this If that infants may be called his servants though they doe no service Lev. 21.41 42. Then they may be called Disciples though they doe not appear to learn But they may be called Gods servants though they doe him no service Ergo. They may be called Disciples though they doe 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 followes not that therefore they are Disciples though they doe not learn May not a man as well prove the unprofitable servant Luke 19. by the same Logick to be a Disciple as thus If one may be called Christs servant though he doe him no work then he may be called Christs Disciple though he doe not appear to learn But the unprofitable servant Luke 19. was called Christs servant as appears by vers 13. and Mat. 25.14 and yet he did him no work Ergo. He was Christs 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 dayes old are not called Gods servants any where in Scripture 2 As to the Text urged in favour to this Lev. 25.41 42. if you compare it with vers 39. you will see it was not spoken to prove infants in the Cradle Gods servants but rather to shew that because the Nation of Israel that he brought out of Aegypt were his servants therefore they should not be slaves one to another and sold as bond men which they never did use to doe to Children in the Cradle 3 Again Cannot God speak many things concerning Children as that they are his servants c. 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 dayes 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 vertuous woman Prov. 31.20 Her Children rise up and call her blessed therefore her little infants of eight dayes 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 dayes old were his servants 2 You goe 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 opprest by Taxes therefore every one that 's opprest by Taxes is a Clergy-man 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 shewing you how willing you are to gather up any thing to serve your turne though nothing to purpose one while they viz. infants are to be baptized because believers Children doe know the Lord and are taught of God c. And now you plead they may be baptized though ignorant What a miserable shuffling is here What knowledge the cause all this while and now be baptized though they are ignorant what strange Logick 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 doe unto their Children while they were infants so that if God had commanded parents to baptize their infants then their ignorance could not hinder no more then it could hinder their parents from Circumcising them after God had commanded it But here you doe beg the question by taking it for granted that God commanded infants to be baptized 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 goe 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 shewes his ignorance and the 8th the necessity of his washing Mr. Ive's WHy doe you not conclude somewhat from hence or else why doe 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 Peters 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 it selfe but of somewhat Christ would make known by it which was to shew That they whom he washed should learn of him to doe 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 baptize them as Peter had when Christ washed his feet though they might not know all circumstances relating to baptism then indeed it were somewhat to your purpose to quote this place Again is it not a strong signe of a weak cause that you should compare the ignorance of Peter to the ignorance of your infants his being but a partiall 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 marvell though the Apostles were ignorant of the end of it till it was declared neither was there any such qualifications required in washing one anothers feet as is required in baptisme You proceed and say that Mr. Kellie THe Scripture doth not say None shall be baptized 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 doe not labour Mr. Ive's TO this I answer first that the Scripture doth not say you shall not baptize bells nor goe a Pilgrimage why then do not you do these things 2 Again it did not say as we have elswhere observed that the Children of Abraham should not be circumcised the sixth or fourth day why then did not they doe it before Nor the Scripture doth not say Infants shall not receive the Sacrament of the bread and wine why doe you then refuse to give it them Doe you not plainly see that you condemn others in the thing you allow for you condemn us that will not baptize our infants because you say it 's 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 where forbidden I but you will say it 's implicitly forbidden 1 Cor. 11.28 because the Text saith Let a man examine himselfe 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 baptized c. Mark 16. and If thou BELIEVEST thou mayest be baptized Acts 8. Doe 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 baptized 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 doe exclude them Doe you not hereby give us to understand that let the word of God say what it will you will doe what you list Neither doe you think to mend the matter by that place of Scripture 2 Thess 3.10 If any will not worke he should not eat Now you seem to conclude from hence that though Children doe not work yet they must eat Ergo. Though children doe not believe yet they must be baptized Now see the fallacy the Text doth not say He that DOTH not worke as you say when you apply it to infants but He that WILL not worke Now if there be any children that WILL not work they must not eat viz. of the Churches 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 baptize Children in their infancy as he hath done to fathers and mothers to feed them in their infancy then you had said something to the purpose otherwise you had as good have said nothing Mr. Kellie