An anſwer to Thomas Lamb his eight Arguments entituled, The unlawfulneſſe of Childrens BAPTISME.

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 the4 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 an5 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 Ordi­nances6 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 of7 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 affirmative8 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 he9 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. 3Your 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 over­throws10 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,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. 4Your 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 appro­priated13 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. 5Your 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 argument14 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. 7That 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,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 profeſſion16 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.