IN your Title Page, you quote severall Scriptures, as first, Rom. 9.7, 8. Gal. 3.7.29. which places prove indeed, that none are spiritually blessed, and have right un­to the Covenant, but the spirituall seed. Yet this will not prove, that a Church must baptize only those who are internally spirituall persons, (though none are baptized indeed but such.) You know Simon, Acts 8. had outward Bap­tisme, and so those Antichrists. 1 Iohn 2.19. were a while accounted Members of y ^e Church, till they left it and were discovered: so that [...]here is nothing against the baptising of beleevers Infants being in no such danger of hipocrisie at false brethren are in. You quote Acts 8.12. where, upon profession of faith they were baptized both men and women. Proselites must come in by acknowledgement and profession. So were these admitted. This doth not then exclude the [Page 4]male or female Infants of such Prosolites from Baptisme, but sheweth the largements of the Go­spel above the Law: That sealed a male; but this male and female. The other places, Acts 8. 37. & 10.47, 48. & 11.17. all tend to one end in their true scope, that is, to bring the Gen­tile, (sometimes afarre off) now neare, and that by profession of faith, even as the stranger under the Law, might come in, and be one with the people of the Jewes by acknowledgement, and voluntary subjection to the Law, Exod. 12.48. and this the Parent, a stranger was to performe, and then his Infant was also admitted upon the parents voluntary manifestation of his desire. And the Churches of Christ are now by faith come into the Jews state, and grafted in as they were broken off: as they were broken off, Ro. 11.

T. L. I Come now to your Arguments; your first is. That which makes the traditions of men of equall authority with the Law of God, ought in no wise to be, Mat. 15.6. Mar. 7.7. But the Bap­tisme of Infants, though of beleeving Parents, doth so. Therefore that ought not to be.

Ans. Hear we deny the minor, which you goe about to prove thus.

T. L. That which is an action of religion performed and not one jot or tittle of the word requiring the same, that makes the Traditions of men of equall authority with the Law of God: But the baptisme of Infants, though of Beleevers, is an [Page 5]action of Religion supposed, to bee performed, and not one jot or tittle of the word requiring the same: Therefore, &c.

Ans. Hear we deny your minor again; for we have the Covenant made with Abraham and to all beleevers, Gen. 17. That God will be a God to them, and to their seed after them, explained in the second Commandement, That God will shew mercy unto thousands of them that love him and keep his Commandements. Therefore ( Isa. 44.3.) I will povre (saith God) my Spi­rit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine off-spring; and they shall spring up as among the grasse, as Willowes by the water courses. And Isa. 59.21. this Covenant is renewed. My Spirit which is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seeds seed (saith the Lord) from henceforth & for ever. Which Cove­nant was revived to Abraham, and confirmed by Christ, Gen. 17.7. Rom. 15.8. the Covenant being still one, Heb. 13.20. though the typicall ordinances thereof be changed. And therefore were the Israelites nation called a holy seed, Ezr. 9.2. a godly seed, Mal. 2.15. and were Circumcised, eate of the Manna), drank of the Rock, passed through, and were Baptized in the Cloud and Sea: and those Ordinances are de­clared to be the same with our spirituall Ordi­nances [Page 6]of Baptisme, and the Supper, 1 Cor. 10.1, 2. The Gospell also declareth that yong chil­dren [Infants] were brought to Christ, and he gave them imposition of hands, Luke 18.15. Mat. 19.15. And [little children] proposed as an example, and parterne of imitation to the very chife of the Church-members, Mat. 18.2, 34. 1 Pet. 2.2. & Mat. 19.14. & Mat. 10.14. Christ would not have little children kept from him, for of such is the kingdome of heaven. And Peter saith, Acts 2.39. The promise is to you, and to your children, whom Paul calleth, holy Children, 1 Corinh. 7.14. in relation to Ezra. And the Gospel (prophesie) of Zachary is, that the streets of the City shall be full of boyes and girles, playing in the streets thereof. And Act. 2.17. God is said to poure out his spirit upon all flesh. The beleeving Gentile by faith being engraffed, and his seed with him into the same stocke and state, out of which the Iew by unbe­leefe is broken off. See Rom. 11.19, 20, 21. As may also appeare by comparing, Exod. 19.5, 6. Deut. 10.14, 15. with 2 Pet. 2.9. Rev. 1.6. where the Saints Titles and expressions are ap­plyed to the beleeving Gentile, as they were to the beleeving Jew. Can any man then forbid water to these (children of promise) who have received the Holy Ghost as welll as wee, Acts 10.47. John Baptist understood their right, when there went out unto him all the land of [Page 7]Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all bap­tized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sinnes, Mark 1.5. Now that it was ordi­nary for the Parents to carry their children with them, appeares by those two examples of the five thousand men, besides women and children, fed with seven loaves, Mat. 15.38. And the Chur­ches bearing Paul company with wives and Children, Acts 21.5. If you say▪ children could not confesse their sinnes, and professe repentance therefore were not baptised; I answer, This wil, not be granted, seeing submission to Baptisme was it selfe a Confession of sin, and profession of Repentance: as Circumcision made men debters to keep the whole Law, Gal. 5.3. which no Infant could promise by word, but his submitting there­to was his bond. And as John Baptist, so like­wise Christ himselfe also, by his Disciples, Bap­tised the Children, that came or were brought unto him. As appeares by that large testimony, That he baptized, and all men came unto him, John 3.26. which compared with John 7.22, 23. Yee on the Sabbath day circumcise a man: If a man on the Sabbath day receive Circumci­sion, Iohn 16.21. For joy that a man is borne into the world, Gen. 4.1. I have gotten a man from the Lord. All which doth shew that chil­dren were usually called men, and so not exclu­ded from Christs Baptisme.

T. L. Your second argument is; Every affirmative [Page 8]command of Christ hath its negative, so that whosoever Christ hath commanded to be bap­tized, ought so to be, and all others prohibited. But the affirmative command of Christ to his Apostles, is Matth. 28.18. That they should teach all nations, baptizing them, (that is, those that are taught either by themselves or some o­ther) therefore the Aposties were prohibited from baptizing any that were not first taught.

Ans. The minor of this Argument hath some deceipt in it, the commission here being urged in another manner then the word in the originall will be are, for it is not to be translated, Teach all nations: but Mat. 28.19. Make all nati­ons Disciples▪ baptizing them, &c. ver. 20. tea­ching them. And here is indeed a negative com­mand, not to baptize any but Disciples, And this blames those who baptize the Infants of them who are not visible Disciples: but here are two things to be considered. ☞ First, whether beleevers Infants are not Disciples of Christ, as the Jews Infants were Disciples of Moses, ☞ the Spirit using the same word, which it doth here of Moses Dis­ciples, John 9.28. who were sealed with Cir­cumcision, as Christs Disciples with baptisme, ( and the beleeving Gentiles also, being in the same estate with the beleeving Jew as was pro­ved before.) ( Secondly, if an unbeleever be bap­tized with water before he beleeveth, and after come to beleeve, and to be a Disciple, whether he [Page 9]must be baptized again? And for this, whether there be any word in Scripture to warrant a se­cond baptizing with water into the name of Christ. For my part I know none? but this I know, that wee must practise nothing without warrant: So that this argument and your other, thereupon, which you frame thus, (If the Apo­stles were prohibited in the negative of Christs command touching baptisme, from baptizing a­ny that were not first taught, either by them­selves or some other, then ought not the Infants no not of beleevers to be baptized, because none can know them to be taught, seeng they make no profession of faith and repentance: but the Apostles were prohibited from baptizing any that were not first taught in the negative of Christs command touching baptisme. Therfore the Infants of beleevers are not to be baptized.) will hold well against those that are not made Disciples, but not against Infants as not taught, and the commission being to make Disciples, all nations and baptize them, must needs lead to baptize Infants as a part of them.

T. L. 3 Your third argument is? That which over­throws the nature of the covenant of grace, ought in no wise to be. But the baptisme of In­fants, though of beleevers, doth so. Therefore &c.

Answer. Here we deny the minor, which you seeme to prove thus: T. L. That which is administred upon a supposed interest in the covenant of grace, with­out faith in the person so interested. That over­throws [Page 10]the nature of the covenant of grace, be cause persons have interest therein no otherwise then by faith, Rom. 4.16. Gal. 3.9.29. any thing else concluded so, makes the promise or cove­nant void, Rom. 4.16. Gal. 3.18. But the bap­tisme of Infants, though of beleevers, is admini­stred upon a supposed interest in the covenant of grace, without faith in y ^e person so interested, viz. the faith of their parents. Therefore the baptisme of Infants, though of beleevers, overthrows the nature of the covenant of grace, and consequent­ly ought in no wise to be.

I Ans. Your minor here is denied, as being quite cōtrary to the nature of the covenant of grace: for y ^e doctrine of the covenant is that God of his free grace hath made a promise of grace & life to all his elect, upon whom he will shew mercy, Ro. 9.18. And that before they have done good or evill, while they are enemies, reconciling them to God by the blood of his Son, Rom. 5.10. and loving them with an everlasting love, not that they beleeved or loved him, but that he loved them first, 1 Ioh. 4.10.19. And this love he in time manifests, taking his Abrahams, out of the land of the Caldeans, Act. 7.3. his Israel out of Egypt, through the red Sea, vers. 36. and his people from the world, Ioh. 9.14. into fellow­ship and union with the Father and the Son, & communion of the Spirit, vers. 21, 22.23. And thus God taketh a nation out of a nation, Deu. 4.34. to be a chosen generation, a royal priest­hood, [Page 11]an holy nation, a peculiar people unto him 1 Pet. 2.9. And the Spirit, in this spirituall house, he hath promised to be powred out upon all flesh both young and old, Act. 2.19. The very children being holy, 1 Cor. 7.14. because children of promise, Act. 2.39. having their sins forgiven for Christs name sake, 1 Iohn 2.12. Therefore are they to be baptized into Christ, because they have visibly put on Christ, Gal. 3.27. And are distinguished from the world, in being the children, not of the world, but of a be­leever; when God draws a people from the world into fellow ship with himselfe, their little chil­dren are distinguished from the world, as so ma­ny perfecters of the praise of God, Matth. 21.16. and are owned freely in his Son Christ before faith or workes manifested actually in their owne persons. Those who deny the Infants of be­leevers thus to be in Gods visible house, must ne­cessarily hold justification not to goe before actu­all faith, which is Arminius tenet, or deny origi­nal sin, or conclude al infants damned, or else that those who are saved, are saved some other way then by the Gospel. The places you quote, meane no other justification by faith, then imputation. Faith to take hold of free grace, was required in the Jewish parents, even in Circumcision, as ap­pears by Deut. 10.16. & 30.6. ( without which the Circumcision outward was nothing) and the like for baptizing of beleevers Infants, the Jew within, Rom. 2. ult.

T. L. 4 Your fourth argument is: That which over­throws the nature of Christs true visible Church ought in no wise to be. But the baptisme of be­leevers Infants doth. So therefore, &c.

T. L. Answer. The minor is denyed, you frame an argument to prove it, thus: If the matter of the Church be only regenerate persons, and the matter of the visible Church, such only as appears so by their profession of faith & repentance; Then to baptize Infants, is to contradict this, and to overthrow the nature thereof, seeing they are born in sinne, & make no appearance to the contrary; but that they so remaine. But the matter of the Church are only regenerate persons, Ioh. 3.3.5. And the matter of the visible Church only such as appear so by the profession of faith and repentance Ro. 8.15. 1 Cor. 4.15. Therefore to baptize Infants though of beleevers, is to overthrow the nature thereof, & consequently ought in no wise to be.

I Answ. Your minor is not proved, but beg­ged, but we have proved the Infants of beleevers to be a part of that nation taken out of a nation▪ Deut. 4.34. The little ones whose sins are forgi­ven, 1 Joh. 2.12. Holy children, 1 Corin. 7.14. Children of promise, Act. 2.39. &c. Of such is the Kingdome of heaven saith the King himselfe, Matth. 19 14. Therefore very meet to be of and in his spirituall visible Church: and in their di­stinction from the world, being beleevers Infants profession of faith and repentance may be appro­priated [Page 13]unto them visibly: as the Iews circum­cision inward, without which Paul saith, It was not circumcision that was outward in the Flesh, Rom. 2. ult: but that of the heart, the answer of a goood conscience saith Peter.

T. L. 5 Your fifth argument is: That which makes religion subsist in the deed done now in the time of the Gospell, ought in no wise to be. Phil. 3.3. John 4.23, 24. But the baptisme of Infants, though of beleevers, doth so, Therefore, &c.

Answer. Answ. This miner is denyed, your argument for proofe of it is this: T. L. That which is an action of religion done, and no faith in the person of the doer, required in doing of that thing: that makes religion to subsist in the deed done. But the baptisme of Infants, though of beleevers, is an action of religion performed, and no faith re­quired in the person of the doer, in the doing of that thing. Therefore, &c. I An. The minor is denyed: Beleevers Infants are visibly in Gods decree in the Kingdome of heaven, Mat. 19.14. Having the seeds of faith, without which they cannot please God, Heb. 11.6. And the Spirit of Christ, without which they are none of his.

T. L. Your sixth argument is, That which reviveth Judaisme, and so denyeth Christ to be come in the Flesh, ought in no wise to be, 1 Iohn 4.3. 2 Iohn 7. But the baptisme of Infants, though of Beleevers, doth so. Therefore, &c.

Answ. The minor is denyed, your argument [Page 14] for proofe thereof is, T. L. That practise which is grounded upon the Typicall seed, which typed out Christ the true promised seed, and ceased at his comming. That practice now in respect of the ground of that practise, reviveth Iudaisme in the type, and denyeth Christ the truth of the type to bee come in the Flesh. But the bap­tisme of Infants (though of beleevers) is groun­ded upon the typicall seede which typed out Christ the true promised seed, and ceased at his comming, Gal. 3.16.19. Therefore, &c.

Answer. Answ. The minor is denyed. The practise of baptizing of the Infants of Beleevers, is groun­ded upon the gracious covenant of the Gospell to all the children of God. Out of which if all Infants visibly are, then either they are all sa­ved without the promise, or damned for want of the promise.

Your seventh argument is,

T. L. 7 That which makes the world and the Church all one, & confounds the distinction that ought to be betweene them, ought in no wise to bee. Col. 4.5. 1 Pet. 2.12. 2 Col. 2.20. 2 Cor. 2.6.15.

But the baptisme of Infants, though of belee­vers, doth so. Therefore, &c.

T. L. Your minor is denyed: your Argument to prove it is; Those who administer the speciall priviledge, and ordinance of entring persons in­to the Church; from common causes which do belong unto the world, as well as to the Church, [Page 15]doe make the world and the Church all one, and con­found the distinction that ought to bee betwixt them.

But to Baptize Infants, though of Beleevers, is to ad­minister the speciall priviledge, the ordinance of entring persons into the Church, from common causes, which doe belong unto the world, as well as to the Church; to wit, the generall offer of promise, Matthew. 28.19. Acts 2.39. which is to be offered to every man and wo­man in the world, Mar. 16.15. or else being borne of beleeving Parents, which agrees to Ismael & Esau, as wel as to Isaac & Iacob, and all in this respect being but flesh borne in sinne, and children of wrath, Iohn 3.6. Psal. 51.5. Eph. 2.3. Therefore, &c.

In this minor is considerable what is the ordinance of en­tering persons into the Church? and that properly is not bap­tisme, but the uniting of the members of one body by one Spirit, to walk together under one Lord, in one faith, Eph. 4.4, 5. Whence Baptisme and all other ordinances flow; for we baptise not to bring into the Church, but because he is in the Church; therefore we baptise, (The visible Church being generally considered) so that the minor is flatly deny­ed. And as for common causes, do you account it so cōmon to be a beleevers childe, when Paul counted it as a privi­ledg to Timothy, that he continued in the same faith which dwelt, fust in his grandmother Lois, & his mother Eunice, 2 Tim. 1.5. And so was borne of beleeving parents. But Ishmael and Esau had that, as well as Isaac and Iacob. What then? Is it therefore such a common cause with the world, as therefore beleevers Infants must not be bapti­zed? Then likewise none must be baptized upon profession [Page 16]of faith: Seeing Simon, Act. 8.13. Beleeved, made an outward profession) and was baptized, though in the gall of bitternesse, and in the bond of iniquity, v. 23. Demas for al his professions, forsook Paul, and embraced the pre­sent world, 2 Tim. 4.10. Phigellus and Hermogenus tur­ned away from Paul for all their professions, 2 Tim. 1.15. & Ch. 3. v. 5. The whole world are under a profession or forme of godlinesse, but have denyed the power. Because therefore profession may agree with the world, as well as with the Saints, will you therefore baptize none upon it? This is still a very poor argument, like your former before. So is your last argument, to which I come; which is,

T. L. That w ^ch unites persons with the church of Rome, & Papists, ought in no wise to be Rev. 18.4. But the baptis­me of Infants, though of beleevers, doth so. Therefore, &c.

Ans. Ans. This minor is denyed, you argue to prove it thus,

T. L. Wheresoever the baptisme is one, the Church & people is one. But the Papists & Romes baptisme is one with the baptisme of Infants, though of beleevers. There­fore, &c. This minor is very false again. Now you still prove it as slightly as you did the former, thus: Because they baptize Infants? Is this a good consequence? The Pa­pists baptize Infants, therfore we must not baptize Infants. Then take these with you also: The Papists read Scriptures, therefore we must not read Scriptures. The Papists hold it lawfull to pray, therefore we must not pray! will not this be good stuffe? I end.

The Lord teach us better arguments for the truth then you hava brought heer, & unite our hearts in every triuh of the Gospel.