whether this be breach of Covenant yea or no. If that be true which you say that Infants can make no Covenant they can break no Covenant And therefore though it it be evil otherwise to deny Christ and to turne Turk to deny Christ and enter into confederacy with the Devil with you it can be no breach of Covenant in Baptisme at least For where no Covenant was ever made no Covenant can be broken If Infants cannot Covenant or professe in Infancie there is no reason to tye them to that where they wanted ability to engage But yet further to let it appear that children may Covenant in their Parents or if you will have it that father and child may Covenant together consider the practise of the Jewish Church in the dayes of Jehosophat When the children of Moab and the children of Ammon came against them to battel all Judah stood before the Lord with their little ones their wives and their children 2 Chro. 20.13 If any shall ask why did the little ones stand before the Lord if it be true as you say that they had not the first principle of profession The reason is clear the people of the Jews in those times having no strength of their own to deal against such a multitude they came to humble themselves and to pray for help by vertue of the Covenant and the Promise made to Abraham and his seed vers 7. This is the reason wherefore the Beleevers in that dispensation stood before the Lord they and their little ones It was to this end that he might see not only Covenanting Parents but also children in Covenant with him and that both together might implore help by vertue of the promise made to Abraham and to his seed These and many other examples might be brought to prove that children may repent professe Covenant in their Parents that do undertake for them and with them But least you might plead that these are extraordinary cases I will make it appear in all times of the Jewish Church state for two thousand years together from Abraham to Christ that the children did usually professe and covenant in their Parents that did undertake for them This is true in the naturall Jew but it is more clear in the Proselyte and his children When the Proselyte came in himself he could not be admitted unlesse he did actually repent and actually professe Faith in the promise in the time of that dispensation Exod. 12.48 2 Chro. 6.32 33. Ruth 1.16 You will say then why were the children admitted seeing they had not to use your words the first principle of profession It is clear that the children did professe in the Parents that did undertake for them Exod. 12.38 If this be true in the Proselyte and his children in all times of the Jewish Church why should not we judge the like of the children of such as were converted from Gentilisme or Judaisme in those first times of the Christian Church Why Mr. Everard should it be a thing incredible with you when Peter said Repent and be baptized why should it be so strange a thing to say the children did repent and beleeve in their parents that did undertake for them or with them Now that it may more clearly appear I will further prove it that children may repent and professe in their Parents I will clear it from the Text it self for when Peter exhorted his hearers to repent the sinne they should repent of was their crucifying the Lord of life As therefore the nation of the Jews by crucifying of Christ and by rejecting of the Gospel as by this act of the Parents the children were cast off So when it shall please the Lord to open their eyes to see that sinne to mourne over it then the children shall come in and together with their Parents shall repent of that national sinne of crucifying the Messiah For proof of this let that Text be considered I will pouer upon the house of David and the inhabitants of Hierusalem the spirit of grace and supplications and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced In that day there shall be a great mourning in Hierusalem as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon And the land shall mourne every familie apart c. Zach. 12.10 11 12. This Scripture is to be applyed to the call of the Jews for the Prophet speaketh of the Spirit of grace that shall be poured upon that people in the latter times and when the whole nation should look to him whom they have peirced and should mourn for it But the question is when that nation shall be called to repent of their sinne in the last times under the Gospel Church-State Shall not the children be said nationally to repent in and with their Parents If you shall deny it then show me First how the body of the nation may be brought to the Faith Secondly how will you salve the words of the Prophet which saith plainly every familie shall mourn apart and their wives apart If they shall mourn family by family the mourning shall be of fathers that see their sinne with their children Thirdly If the children have been cast away many hundred years for their parents sin and with their parents shall we not think at the time of their call that the children shall repent of this sinne and come in at the time of the comming in of the whole nation If this be true at the general call of the Jews as I think you cannot well deny then it must be true also in those that did repent at the hearing of Peters Sermon For the three thousand that did then beleeve repent and come into the Church were but a pattern of that future call of the Jews that shall be in the latter times And therefore if it be true in the general conversion of that nation when the parents repent and mourn for their sin of crucifying the Christ that the children may be said to repent in their Parents I do not see but it may be some way true also in the partiall conversion at Peters Sermon When the parents did mourn for their sinne of crucifying the Lord of glory we can judge no other in a Covenant sense but that the children did mourn in them and with them And therefore for the three thousand that were added to the Church the whole company of souls that were baptized they were no other but beleeving parents and their children But if you shall reply that there were no children in that company because it is said that they who gladly received the word were baptized vers 41. I answer as before though the children could not gladly receive the word in their own persons yet they might gladly receive it in the persons of them that did undertake for them In a strict sense little children cannot be said to come to Christ yet our Saviour doth expound it as though they came themselves when they were brought in the armes
are to be applyed to the beleeving families of the earth to Father and Child as it was formerly to the particular family of Abraham The blessing must needs go from family to family from the particular family of Abraham in the times of Circumcision to all the beleeving families of the earth in the times of Baptisme So then the chief circumstances of the Commission being laid together First all Nations in Covenant standing in immediate opposition to one Nation of the Jewes Secondly the circumstance of time that Baptisme did precisely begin at that instant to be the Seale of admission into the Church gathered out of all Nations when Circumcision ceased Thirdly the substance of the doctrine by preaching the Gospel the Apostles were to bring the blessing of the particular family of Abraham into all the beleeving families of the earth All these circumstances laid together plainly prove that Baptisme is to be applyed to the Church gathered out of all Nations after the same manner respecting beleeving parents and their children as Circumcision was applyed to the particular Nation of the Jewes And therefore when our Saviour saith Go teach all Nations baptizing them c. we can conceive no other from the circumstances of the Commission but that by positive right and by the appointed will the children in a beleeving Nation together with their parents are comprehended in the word Them as the true and proper subject of Baptisme So then we have a word of command cleared from the Commission from the scope of the text and the principal circumstances do agree Let us now go to parallel-Scriptures Secondly if we compare parallel Scriptures in the New Testament we shall finde by comparing Scripture with Scripture that the children must needs be comprised in the word of the Commission For the particular Scriptures because they are so largely handled by the late Writers Mr. Cotion Mr. Marshal Mr. Blake and as I hear by some others lately come forth I shall spare my paines and referre the judicious Reader to their learned Treatises Only to the purpose in hand I desire to lay down this as a sure rule that from whatsoever text in the New Testament the Baptisme of Infants may be proved whether it be proved directly or indirectly mediately or immediately severally by one place or joyntly by comparing many places together which was soever it be proved the matter will come to this that if the children have a right they must be contained in the general command And therefore when our Saviour saith teach all Nations baptizing them we must needs suppose that he speaketh comprehensively that in the word them he doth include every person that hath a right to the Seale under the new dispensation And therefore if in any of the aforenamed Authors any one text will hold good for the Baptisme of Infants we may argue that Infants are contained in the head precept Let us come to give two or three instances The Apostle in that famous place speaking of the children of beleevers doth use these words The unbeleeving husband is sanctified by the wife and the unbeleeving wife is sanctified by the husband else were your children uncleane but now are they holy 1 Cor 7.14 Here the Apostle speaketh of the natural children of beleevers that they are holy I demand then in what sence doth he say they are holy It is agreed upon on all sides that it is not meant of inward holinesse because the children are said to be holy as being propagated from beleeving parents Therefore it must be one of these two wayes either by Covenant holinesse as we affirm or by legitimation of issue as the followers of the Separation But I say the text cannot possibly be understood in the latter sence for then why may not the children of Turks and Tartars be said to be holy seeing many of them are borne in lawfull wedlock Secondly if any text of Scripture may be found out where the children may be said to be holy because lawfully borne yet how can such a sence agree to the present text Here only is mention made of beleeving and unbeleeving parents of a clean or unclean issue as the parent is either beleeving or unbeleeving Upon these considerations when the Apostle saith that the children are holy this must needs be meant of federal and covenant holinesse He speaketh of the time Now are the children holy to wit in the last exhibition of the promise And therefore in the sence of the Commission when our Saviour saith teach all Nations baptizing them his command was to baptize the Corinthians children so farre forth as the parents did beleeve through grace In this sence because the parents did beleeve the progeny was holy as a part of a discipled Nation and according to the meaning of the Commission a lawfull subject of Baptisme The Corinthians children being federally holy must needs be contained in the word them teach all Nations baptizing them c. Secondly from the maine scope of Rom. 11. it is plaine that the Gentiles have now the same graffing into the Olive tree that the Jewes had before and that the present graffing in of the Gentile is answerable to the casting out of the Jew So then if when the Jew was graffed in he was graffed in and his children it will follow the Gentile being ingraffed in his place he must needs be graffed in and his children Again when the Jew was cast out he was cast out and his children and therefore when the Gentile was received in his roome be must be received and his children If this be not so where will be the analogie between the breaking off of one linage and the implantation of another the breaking off of some branches and the ingraffing in of others If the beleeving Gentile did not come in with his children in the place of the Jew cast out what shall we make of the whole sence of the chapter what shall become of the opposition between Nation and Nation To whom may the Apostle be said to direct his speech when he speaketh Thou art cut out of the Olive tree wild by nature Thou bearest not the root but the root thee He that spared not the naturall brunches take heed that he spare not thee Behold the severity of God but on thee goodnesse ver 17 18 19 20 21 22 24. Now who is this thou and thee to whom he doth so frequently speak It can be no other but the beleeving Gentile and his children opposed to the Jew cast out of covenant and his children If you apply this to the Commission Go teach all Nations baptizing them what can be more naturall to affirme then that the children with their beleeving parents make up a discipled nation and that both together are the lawfull subjects of baptisme In Rom. 11. the beleeving parents with their children are contained in the words them and thee and they are also comprised in the word them in the commission Go
yet neverthelesse for a more clear understanding of things and the taking away of doubts that may arise let us distinguish between a Nation under Paganisme and a Nation where Christian Religion is set up in the throne If you speak of a Nation under Paganisme we may say that such a Nation is so far discipled as any part of it doth submit to the Faith As for example when Paul came to Rome to preach the Gospel by his preaching he did not make the whole people of Rome a discipled people But they were so far forth made a discipled Nation as any particular men in that City did beleeve and did engage themselves to bring up all under their education in the faith of the Christ come in the flesh so far they became a discipled Nation and no further And this is the reason wherefore in those first times we read only of the Baptisme of Beleevers and their housholds because then the Christian education was only in the houses of the Faithfull the Roman Emperour being as yet but a step-father and an enemy to the Church Secondly If you consider a Nation so far forth as the Christian Faith is set up as the Religion of the State in this sence we take a discipled Nation in a larger extent For not only the families of those that truly beleeve but the families of others also that are willing to yeeld to the Christian education and to live under the tuition of a godly Magistracy in the Common-wealth and the instruction of a powerfull Ministery in the Church so far forth as they are willing to be guided by the Lawes and the Government of the Church of Christ and are no worse so far they must go under the notion of a discipled Nation and Parents and Children both be the lawfull subject of Baptisme If this be not so let any man shew a reason why God should tye his grace only to the Children of those that truly beleeve when the Children of others also are willing to live under the shadow of his Ordinances and therein to wait for the in-coming and influence of his grace In Abrahams family not only they that were borne in his house but they that were bought with his money were esteemed to belong to that education Gen. 17.12 17. If any shall say that this was the time of the Jewish Church state to take in all under that Government He that doth so reason let him shew the meaning of the Spirit in the Revelation when he speaketh of the reign of Christ upon the Earth ch 20. and of the Kingdoms of this world that they became the Kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ ch 11. ver 15.17 What is the meaning of this but that the Kingdoms of this world being before the Kingdomes of the Beast and yeelding subjection to his universall Headship they became the Kingdomes of Christ to live in subjection under the Gospel as the Regent Law By all that hath been spoken a discipled Nation may be known by their subjection to the Gospel at least by their outward profession of the Faith to which they do submit I have stayed the longer upon this point by reason of a Question that was put to me when I was at Earle-shilton For being there and insisting upon the Baptisme of Beleevers and their Children and that from the words of Peter Act. 2.38 39. a Question was then put to me in these words By what right do you baptize the Children in your Parish do you take all your Parishioners for true Beleevers My Answer then was and now is That I do baptize them as branches of a discipled Nation For seeing the Parents do outwardly professe the Christ come in the flesh and because they are willing that I should teach their Children the principles of the Faith upon this consideration I do baptize the Children aforesaid So far as I understand I have a word of command for it The Children being contained in the word them teach all Nations baptizing them Now whereas some godly People in these times impute the evils among us to Infant-baptisme in this they are deceived it is for want of a Discipline to hold us unto that which we do professe Let any man take away a Coercive-government out of a Common-wealth a Discipline from an Army a Rod out of a Schoole and then let him see whether he may not count as many disorders in those wayes as now he doth see in Parish-Churches To say the truth we have had never an Excommunication at least none rightly used and this hath been a great cause of the evill in the Parochiall-Church-way in which now we stand Therefore if things be out of order among us as indeed they are I do willingly confesse that this doth arise from the want of a Discipline to make a separation between the Precious and the Vile It doth arise from want of diligent Catechising of Children according to the strict trusts of their Baptisme when they were first admitted It doth arise from the want of a powerfull and spirituall Ministery as formerly in greater measure so now also in too too many places It doth arise also from the want of Communion of Saints to carry on the work of grace in one anothers heart These are the causes of disorder by which all the rest is put out of frame They then that impute these mischiefes to Infant-baptisme they do impose upon us with a Sophisme they put that for the cause which is not the cause That this may appeear let us take it as granted That a Disciple able to make outward profession in his own Person is the only subject of Baptisme I say then by their own rule the Masters of Division cannot deny Baptisme to a Child of eight or ten years old when he is able to repeat the principles of the Faith If they deny it to such a one they must deny Baptisme to a Disciple and what is this but to crosse their own-principles Again if they admit such a one to outward Baptisme as admit him they must what true difference is there between such a one and an Infant of three dayes old especially such an Infant whose Parents will faithfully promise and ingage for his education For my part I am not acute enough to see a difference at least such a difference that men should demolish Parishes overturne Foundations tear Churches and Congregations in peices disturb the peace of the Church and the Common-wealth and set all on fire as I apprehend for bables and trifles I have done with the first place I come now to the most speciall Scripture to prove the Baptisme of Infants from the promise made to Beleevers and their Children The second Scripture to prove a precept is from the words of Peter in the first solemne administration of Baptisme Act. 2.38 39. Now that this may be more fully understood I will take the liberty to open the Text in a plain and familiar way by question
This is the meaning of the text that the promise doth belong to the children of Beleevers whether Jewes or Gentiles whether in the second or in the third dispensation the promise doth belong to the children when the parents come to embrace the faith On this ground doth the Apostle urge the word of command to father and child be baptized every one of you and this I take to be the true meaning of the text Quest So you say but what sufficient reason can you bring to assure the conscience Answ That which doth much assure me is the Apostles own interpretation in the chapter following for there he showeth that the blessing in the particular family of Abraham shall be applyed to all the beleeving families kindreds and nations of the earth Acts 3.25 26. with Gal. 3.8 Gen. 12.3 Now what is this but that the promise shall be one and the same to them that beleeve among the Gentiles and their families as to them that did beleeve among the Jewes and their families He doth not speak onely of Beleevers in person but of Beleevers and their children why else doth he say concerning Christ the promised seed all the families shall be blessed in him Why else doth he use this expression But that the promise now in the last times is still one and the same to Beleevers and their families On this ground doth he build the word of command to the parents that did beleeve and to their children Be baptized every one of you Quest If this be the meaning of the command why is there no more frequent mention of the Baptisme of children in the New Testament Answ Because the Apostles after the giving forth of the commission had principally to deal with the Jewes to bring them out of Judaisme and with the Gentiles to bring them out of Gentilisme their work did lye especially in this For this cause we read more often of the Baptisme of such that did beleeve and professe in their own person Yet neverthelesse we find it again and again repeated in the story of the N. Testament that such and such a one beleeveth and was baptized he and his house So farre therefore as I can discern the ordinary baptizing of housholds in those dayes is a plain example to illustrate the word of command in the Apostles words to baptize beleevers and their children Quest For the baptisme of housholds though we do read this again and again repeated yet we are to understand it of such only that did make outward profession Answ True The Apostles did baptize such as did professe in their own persons yet they did baptize the housholds in relation to the fathers engagement For the proof of this I do offer these ensuing reasons First it was the general practise of the Church going before when the father did beleeve and professe he was received with his houshold Exod. 12.48 Therefore when the Apostles did baptize in the new Administration we can conceive no other but they did follow the common use in receiving the father that did beleeve with his children Secondly when they did preach the Gospel they did bring the blessing of Abraham into the beleeving families of the earth If they did this they must needs in the last dispensation apply the promise and the seale generally to all beleeving families of the earth in the same manner as formerly it was applyed to the particular family of Abraham Now what is this but to take in the professing parent with his children Thirdly in those times those that were brought out of Judaisme or Paganisme did at the time of their entrance into the Church make a solemne league and covenant with God to professe the faith they and their families Acts 16.14 1 Cor. 1.12 13 14. Ephes 6.4 Therefore when the Apostles did baptize the housholds of beleevers we cannot conceive that they did this only in relation to some persons that made actual profession but in relation to the fathers ingagement that did undertake for himself and for his children Fourthly they that say the Apostles did baptize the housholds and such in the housholds only as did actually beleeve and professe they that say this let them show a reason why the houshold of Lydia was baptized for we read only of her that the Lord opened her heart to beleeve the Christ If you will say that her family was baptized in relation to her undertaking then the reason will lye cleare in the text Lydia was judged faithful to the Lord and so was baptized she and her houshold Acts. 16.14 All these reasons put together plainly demonstrate the Apostolical practise to baptize beleevers housholds in relation to their undertaking for themselves and for their children If this be so there must needs be an example to answer the Apostolical precept Be baptized every one of you Father and Child for the Promise is to you and to your children And so from the words of Peter compared with the practise of other Apostles we have both a precept and an example for the Baptisme of Children in the New-Testament and as I think our task is done I come now to the third Scripture to prove the necessity of Infant-baptisme Thirdly In the conference with Nicodemus our Saviour doth insist much upon the pollution of the Naturall birth and the necessity of Regeneration both by Water without and the Spirit within Now in this Scripture there is included a Precept to Beleevers to apply the outward washing to their Children born in Originall sinne the Seal of the inward washing That this may bee made manifest I will First clear the Text from two ordinary mistakes Secondly from the words rightly expounded I will show how the precept is deduced by necessary consequence For the mistaks in the first place they do over shoot themselves that plead from hence an absolute necessitie of the Baptisme of infants Indeed there is an absolute necessitie that all that are borne in Originall sinne if they be saved they must be saved by the Covenant but there is not a like necessitie of the Seal In the times of the first dispensation to comfort Beleevers in respect of their Children born in Originall sinne the promise then was The seed of the woman shall break the Serpents head Gen. 3.15 Yet there was no Seal of this Promise no initiall Seal for two thousand years together from Adam to Abraham Further there was not such absolute necessity of the Seal in the times of Circumcision for those that died before the eight day There was then as now is an absolute necessity of Salvation by the Promise and the Covenant but the necessity of the Seal was only conditionall so far forth as it might be well had Therefore when the ancient Writers Fathers and Schoolmen speak so much of the necessity of Baptisme and of the Salvation of Infants strictly and precisely upon terms of Baptisme to my understanding they ascribe too much to the outward Ordinance and so
of others Why else should he say suffer little children to come to me and forbid them not for of such is the Kingdome of Heaven Mat. 19 13. There were seventy souls that came with Jacob into Egypt What did they all come in person were there no children in the company The text is plain Every man came with his houshold Exod. 1.1 Even so among the three thousand that did gladly receive the word there might be many children in the company because the Parents as then the manner was might embrace the Gospel with their housholds But that there were children in that company together with the beleeving Parents I am moved so to judge from these reasons First The Apostle speaketh so universally be baptized every one of you this as I understand in a Covenant sense must needs be spoken to them and to their children Secondly The motive to receive Baptisme for the promise is to you and your children sheweth that the promise doth hold to beleevers and their children in the last aswell as in the two former exhibitions how else could it be the ground to baptize Thirdly It is said of these Beleevers that they did continue in breaking of bread from house to house vers 46. I cannot see how they could well do this from house to house how they could sell their goods and have all things in common but that the families and houses of Beleevers in those dayes must be accounted as belonging to the Church and so consequently the children must be admitted to the Seal Fourthly The generall practise of the Church going before which was ever when the parent was admitted the children had the Seal of admission Exod. 12.48 And shall we think in the first solemne administration of Baptisme that Peter did not follow the common use Fifthly The Apostle himself doth expound what the promise is to beleevers and their children In thy seed shall all the families or kindreds of the earth be blessed Act. 3.25 If all the families of the earth shall be blessed in Christ the promised Seed he doth say in sense that the blessing under the last dispensation shall universally be brought into all the beleeving families of the earth after that manner as it was formerly to the paticular familie of Abraham And do you think that the Apostle himself would not practise according to his own Principles Would he not receive beleeving parents and their children into Church fellowship in the time of the last dispensation after that manner as they were received in the time of the administration going before Sixthly In the small portion of the story of the Apostles now extant it is again and again repeated that such a one received the promise of the Christ and was baptized he and his houshold This moveth me to think that the three thousand soules that were baptized and added to the Church were beleevers and their children But Mr. Everard Let it only stand as probable whether or no there were children in that company This is that which I affirm from Peters words that the children of beleevers have a right to Baptisme both by the word of Promise and the word of Command And for your objection that the children cannot repent that they have not the first principle of profession I have shewed many examples that in a Covenant sense they may be said to repent and to professe in their beleeving parents It is my judgment if beleevers and their children be baptized they must before Baptisme make profession of repentance But how The parents in their own persons and the children vertually and inclusively in the parents that do undertake for them Now Sir I leave it to your own conscience and to all the world beside to judge what reason you had so to accuse me of tearing the words of Peter asunder the words be baptized every one of you from the words repent and You might have spared your accusations of felonie your instances of mangling the words of David The fool hath said in his heart there is no God Psal 14.1 and such like Scriptures You might have spared your Rhetoricall amplifications for I do hold that the children in a Covenant sense did repent and professe in their parents In saying be baptized every one of you Father and Child I have not torne the sentence neither have I taken the words that come after from the words going before repent and c. But now Sir having freed my self of that false and untrue imputation I come to turne that which you have said upon your own head Seeing you are so apt to accuse I would intreat you seriously to consider that which our Saviour spake sometime to the Pharisees when they asked him why do thy Disciples transgresse the tradition of the Elders for they wash not their hands when they eat bread His answer was why do you transgresse the Commandement of God through your traditions Mat. 15.2 3 4 5. In like manner when you condemne me for tearing asunder letters and syllables and such like trifles I may truly reply why do you tear asunder the Promise from the Command and the Command from the Promise of God and spoyle the Scope Union and necessary dependance of Peters words God hath said to Beleevers in the last and best exhibition ot the Covenant the promise is to you and your children And for their greater encouragement he doth exhort them Parents and Children to be baptized in relation to the same promise Now you to returne your own language home again do clip cut and pluck the children of Beleevers as it were by the ears out of the word of Command when they are plainly and expressely mentioned in the word of Promise And so by consequence in matter of Baptisme you make Gods word of Promise and Command of none effect through your traditions You are further pleased to liken me to a theevish Gleaner that draggeth out the corn by the ears and looseth the band of the sheaf pag. 4. lin 17. Sir if I have done as you say with the words of Peter if I have torne the foregoing from the following words then let me bear the blame with all pious men But I hope I have said enough to purge my self of that crime and if need shall so require much more may be said to the satifaction of any reasonable man On the contrary If every man had his own right the similitude doth more fitly appertain to you and to such as you are For if any man shall put the question to me How do you prove out of the words of Peter that beleevers children ought to he baptized I will answer the children ought to be baptized because these words for the promise is to you and your children do immediately follow the precept be baptized every one of you and are annexed as the ground of the precept If he shall say how do you prove that I will reply I prove it from the union of the Apostles words and
doth arise I should for my part be more warie then absolutely to conclude that these men as such were unbeleevers To me it is a strange thing that a man should be 〈◊〉 to the heart for crucifying the Christ and yet not â—â—leeve him to be the Christ There are some other strange passages of yours concerning the spirit of bondage and concerning the meaning of Revel 21.8 which show you to be very rude and unexpert in the true sense of the Scriptures When the spirit saith but the fearfull and the unbeleeving and the abominable and murderers and whoremongers c. Would any man besides your self expound the Fearfull to be meant of all those that lie under the spirit of bondage that all such should have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone By this reason you must needs condemne many tender soules and put them under a heavy condition But Sir that you may not be deceived the word Fearfull must be expounded according to the Analogie of the whole Prophecie which is concerning the sufferings of the Saints under the Antichristian state The word Fearfull then is to be applied to them that deny Christ in the time of persecution for fear of man How crossely then do you apply it to them that are under the spirit of bondage through fear of the justice of God But in this case you do no better with this Scripture then many others do with the raign of Christ upon the Earth They take it that the glory of his Kingdome doth lie in plucking down of Magistracy and Ministery and laying all things level whereas if they did rightly understand the Scriptures and the scope of the Prophecy they would find that the Lord Christ doth begin to raigne when a godly Magistracy is set up in the Common-wealth and a powerfull Ministery assigned to preach the Gospel by vertue of office is seated in the Church But this by the way Now Sir that Peters hearers were true Beleevers of the last dispensation I am moved to beleeve it from this double ground First From the tender of the Promise The Promise was not only offered to them as it was revealed to Abraham and beleeved in all the times of the Jewish Church to wit that the promised Messiah should come but the promise tendered to them was remission of sinne by the blood of the particular Jesus already come whom they had crucified and slaine Secondly I take them to be Beleevers from the receiving of the Promise For as remission of sinne was tendered to them by the blood of the particular Christ So when they on their part did receive the promise so exhibited they were Beleevers And in this sense I say the word of Command was that they and the children under their education should be baptized Fourthly pag. 9. lin 32. You come to the main point to wit that a right to the Promise doth not inferre and bring in a right to Baptisme You argue thus If Peter had a Commission so large to baptize all to whom the Promise did belong then he must have baptized the whole nation of the Jewes and particularly the persons to whom he spake before the word came unto them or before their Conscience was awakened by the word Here Sir I do acknowledge that you speak punctually to the assumption in my argument Therefore for the more clear illustration of the words of Peter and for the more full discovery of the force of the argument which I have alledged I will stay the longer upon this point And to begin with the ground of all I do not say though you are willing to mistake my meaning that a right to the Promise doth absolutely inferre a right to Baptisme for then all beleevers from the beginning of the world would have had a right to Baptisme But I say this that the right which Beleevers and their children have to the Promise as exhibited revealed and declared in the last times under the New Testament this doth inferre and bring in a right to Baptisme And in this doth the force of my argument consist That this may more evidently be declared and that you may judge aright I would intreat you to distinguish between the Promise it self and the severall revelations exhibitions manifestations and editions of the same Promise The Ocean sea is one and the same but yet as it beats upon the Spanish coast it is called the Spanish sea as it beats upon the French coast it is called the French sea and upon the English coast the English sea So the Promise is one and the same to Beleevers and their children yet according to several dispensations it is various manifold To begin therefore with the Promise it self There is but one way of salvation by Christ the promised Seed according to that saying of the Apostle Jesus Christ yesterday and to day and the same for ever Heb. 13.8 But for the degrees of revelation there are three remarkable exhibitions and editions of the Promise The first is for the space of two thousand years from Adam to Abraham The second is for the space of two thousand years from Abraham to Christ The third is from Christ to the end of the world These severall exhibitions of the Promise ought carefully to be distinguished for from hence do arise the differences of Faith the differences of profession of the Faith the difference of Church states the differences of the seals of admission the differences of right to the seals of admission Yea the differences are so great that a true beleever of the heart under one dispensation cannot have a right as such to the Church state or the seal of admission under another dispensation I say he cannot not have a right to the Church state or the seal of admission till he hath received the Promise as exhibited and revealed under that particular dispensation Yet neverthelesse let there be never such great diversitie this will still prove a firme and an undoubted truth in all exhibitions and dispensations that when a man beleeveth the Promise and doth come in the right to Church-membership shall belong to him and to his children Let us now come to instance The first edition of the Promise is for two thousand years from Adam to Abraham and here though God did not show the sonnes of men the Messiah in person as he doth to us nor of what particular familie or nation he should come as he did to the people of the Jewes yet in the general he did make so much of the truth thereof known to them that the Seed of the woman should break the Serpents head Gen. 3.15 He did require them to beleeve the promise so generally revealed and to make publick profession thereof and to such as did beleeve and publickly professe the priviledge did belong to them to be called the people of God and in those times the promise was to beleevers and their naturall seed For proof of this let us
consider that Scripture The sonnes of God saw the daughters of men were faire Gen. 6.2 By sons of God you are not to understand them in that sense as they are meant Rom. 8.14 There it is said If ye be led by the spirit of God then ye are the sons of God The sons of God in the Text of Genesis cannot be taken in this sense that they had the Spirit of God and were led by his Spirit but they are called the sons of God because they were the naturall posterity of beleeving Parents because they were the children of Seth and other holy men who in those times are mentioned to call upon the name of the Lord Gen. 4.26 This sheweth plainly in the time of the first exhibition of the promise that Beleevers children as such had a right to Church-membership with their Parents and I may say also to the seal of admission if any such had been in those first times The second edition of the Promise is for two thousand years from Abraham to Christ And here though the Lord did not go so far with them as to show the promised Seed in person as he hath done to us yet he went further with them then with the Beleeevers of the first dispensation He did not only show them the blessed Seed to come but the particular familie and nation from whence he should come And therefore they that did beleeve under this dispensation were not only bound to beleeve the general promise made to Adam concerning the lost sonnes of men but they were to beleeve the promise made to Abraham they were more particularly bound to joyn themselves to that familie and to make publick profession of the Promise as revealed in the time of that exhibition They that did this the promise did belong to them and to their children and so consequently the children had a right to be admitted into the Church that then was by the initiall seal or by circumcision the seal of admittance Now the third edition of the Promise is from Christ unto the end of the world And here the Lord doth not only show the general promise made to the lost sons of men nor the promised Seed to come of the particular familie of Abraham but he goeth further to show the Messiah individually and in person who he is Iesus Christ conceived by the holy Ghost born of the Virgin Mary suffered under Pontius Pilate c. he is the promised Seed They therefore that beleeve under this dispensation they are not only bound to receive the Promise as generally made in the two former dispensations but they are further required as may appear by the Apostles Sermons to beleeve the Christ come in the flesh and that he is the promised Seed Now they that do receive the Promise as exhibited in this manner have a right to Baptisme the seal of admission into the Church in the times of the New Testament And not only so but as to beleevers in the two former dispensations so in this last and best exhibition of the Covenant the Promise doth hold one and the same in substance to Beleevers and their Children This is the true sense of Peters words and this is the force of my argument Having thus laid down the several exhibitions of the Promise and how in each exhibition the Promise variously dispensed is the ground of Faith Faith the ground of Profession Profession the ground from whence Beleevers in any dispensation have a right to Church membership and so consequently to the seal of admission in each dispensation respectively Having laid down these grounds I come now to answer your objections You say pag. 9. lin 32. If the Commission be so large to baptize all to Whom the Promise doth appertain why doth the Apostle lay such a precise taâ—k upon them to repent before they could be baptized Seeing the Promise did belong to the Nation of the Iewes Rom. 9. Why did not the Apostle baptize the whole Nation Why did he not baptize these particular Iewes that had crucified Christ before they were awakened by the word Why did not hee his endeavour to baptize them against their wills and to take them napping while they were asleep as you do with your Infants in England Sir this is the substance of your cavils To all which I answer those priviledges mentioned Rom. 9. to wit The Covenants the giving of the Law the service of God and the promises all these priviledges dib belong to the Jews not as they were a Nation but as they were a Covenanting Nation For you may find by the scope of the Scripture that these things did not only belong to the naturall Jews but also to the Proselytes and their children as well as to them Exod. 12.48 Secondly When you have all done the naturall Jews were but beleevers and so capable of the seal of admission in their own particular dispensation Nay for the most part these Jewes that looked for the promised Messiah that had the promise and the seal of the promise in their own dispensation formerly they were and as yet are the crucifiers of the particular Messiah and the greatest enemies of the promise as exhibited and revealed in the last times For this very cause Peter did bring the word so sharply home to the conscience to awaken them seeing they could not possibly receive the promise in the last exhibition who had been before the crucifiers of the particular Christ Whereas you say That the Apostle might have baptized them against their wills and have taken them napping as we do with our Infants in England Sir Your comparison will not hold for the Infants of this Church though they have no actuall understanding yet they are the children of such as do beleeve at least such as professe they do beleeve the particular Christ They do not only beleeve the promised Messiah that he should come of the stock of Abraham as did the Beleevers of the Jewish Church but they beleeve at least they professe they beleeve the particular Christ which the Jewish Nation had crucified and slaine Further they professe that they will bring up their Infants at least they are willing that their Infants should be taught by the publick Ministery under which they live by and through it to be brought up in the Christian Faith and so to look after the Christ For this reason Sir your comparison will not hold betwixt the Infants of this Nation and the Jews that were the crucifiers of the Christ Further you go on and reason pag. 10. lin 17. If the promise did belong to the Jews and their children why did not the Prophets baptize this is to call the Prophets accursed for the neglect of the dutie that appertained to them To which I answer I should have called the Prophets accursed if they had neglected to call upon the people to beleeve the promise and to apply the seal of the promise to themselves and to their children so far as it
like arguments have Mr. Swan and Mr. Bosse So far Mr. Everard Here now if by Mr. Swan he intends me I am sure neither he nor his partie ever heard any such arguments from me for the baptizing of Infants and I am sure if he were put to it he cannot prove what he affirmes Therefore Reader take notice that Mr. Everard will not stick to Print falshoods for his advantage and glory and the plucking down and dishonouring the partie which he doth oppose That I do him no wrong observe these passages following He came to Withibrook Congregation with others of his partie of Esen-hall the sixth of October the day when they sold their books aforesaid thither they came to require satisfaction for he then said I had aspersed him At which time I offered him satisfaction if he came to deal with me as a Brother I urged his breach of our Saviours rule If thy Brother sinne against thee c. Mat. 18.15 He said he knew the Text and further he and others answered I was no Brother but an Heathen They also said All out of the Order they walked in were Heathens Against which I thus argue If all out of their order be Heathens then strangers to the Covenant of Promise having no hope without God in the world So is an Heathen defined Eph. 2.12 And if without God and without hope then without salvation and then indeed no true Church But doth Mr. Everard and his friends think that all out of their order are Heathens or did they not go against their light when they thus said If their conscience speak the same language that all are Pagans they must judge them so either because they are strangers from the Covenant of Promise or because they are not baptized after their manner If Heathens because strangers from the Covenant of Promise then no hope of salvation then a necessity of condemnation to all out of their order But if Heathens because not baptized after their manner then their Baptisme only will make Christians of Heathens and none can be saved without their Baptisme Secondly If they say all are Gentiles out of their order because the outward court is troden down by all those out of their order This will help nothing because it will follow upon their own principies that there was no outward Court nor Church ministeriall nor Ordinances to be troden down all along the times of Antichrists reigne For if all out of their order were and are Heathens then there were none but Heathens to be troden down and so Heathens must tread down Heathens except they will yeeld a Church visible and an outward Court And in so doing they lose their Cause Again If Heathens because not baptized after their manner and consequently no Church thea Mr. Everard and those of his judgment were no Church before they received this new Baptisme but they were Pagans aswell as others If they were no true Church their first Administrator was no true Administrator because there was no Church to conferre an office upon him Therefore they must say he had his first Commission immediatly from heaven unlesse they will affirme that Heathens have a power to make an Administrator of Baptisme Now this is contrary to the Scripture which saith they ordained Elders in every Church Acts 14.23 Therefore in the ordinary way the Church is before Elders or Administrators But if they shall say there was an Admimstrator before a Church as John Baptist and therefore by the like reason they may have such a one If they say this they must prove from the Prophets that the Gospel-Churches must have two Baptists be twice planted which supposeth to Gospel-Church in the world before the coming of the second Baptist to plant a new Church Further also they must say that there is a second Christ before whom the second Baptist must come as a forerunner And so new institutions and foundations of Ordinances Baptists Apostles Miracles and whither will not this conceit runne But if they say that the Commission Matth. 28.19 was their first Administrators rule then he must be a Disciple made by ordinary preaching and teaching before he had authority to Minister their new Baptisme whosoever he was And was he taught by some Heathen think they or by a Disciple By an Heathen they cannot say And if by a preaching Disciple then Christ had a Disciple before their new Baptisme Therefore they that want their new Baptisme cannot bee stated Heathens And how foule then was their assertion at Withibrook to call all Heathens out of their order And yet have neither command nor example in Scripture for their Baptisme in reference to their first Ministers Commission or authority And doth not this their practise come here to be condemned which continueth judging our Churches and all out of their order to be Heathens for want of their Baptisme Therefore let all tender-hearted Christians take heed how they are intangled in such a society and practise as will be a continuall condemning and judging of all out of their order though never so godly But if Mr. Everard and his friends are still of the same mind let them with tendernesse consider two things First upon what a poor foundation their Baptisme stands which must necessarily be upon an Heathenish foundation or upon extraordinary revelation The second thing I would intreat them to consider is how they both in judgment and practise continue condemning the generation of the just to hell at least all living and dead that are not of their society What not one Saint by calling in all England neither in Magistracy Ministery nor People that is not of themselves all strangers to God and his Christ Then surely there is no hope that any thing will be done for the Kingdom of Christ by such a Magistracy or Ministry Therefore let me intreat them not to be offended if I put a question to them What would they do with such an Heathen Magistracy Ministry or as one calleth them in his late book officiating Priests in case the power were wholly in their hands For the Ministry it is clear to all the world And for the Magistracy I leave it to his judgment For my part I fear it I do not intend in these lines the Moderate of those that dissent from me in point of Baptisme but Mr. Everard and those of his judgment and the rest that are so bitter against the godly of the Ministry From them I shall expect an answer in which they may do well to prove that their practise is grounded upon a Precept in reference to their first admiministrators authority to baptize And when it comes to my hands I shall consider it FINIS