did appertain to their own dispensation But I think that no sober man will say it was the dutie of the Prophets to call upon the people to beleeve the promise and to receive the seal of the promise in such and such a particular dispensation before the promise as such came to be revealed to them But to come a little more closely to you though the Prophets were righteous men and saved by Christ to come Heb. 11.39 40. Yet God never required them to go any further but to beleeve the Promise only and to receive the seal as exhibited and revealed in their own dispensation The words of the Apostle are clear and pregnant to this purpose Of which salvation saith he the Prophets have enquired and searched diligently who prophecied of the grace that should come unto you Vnto whom it was revealed not unto themselves but unto us they did minister this grace 1 Pet. 1.10 11. Nay further to come to the times of the manifestation of Christ in the flesh I say then the true beleevers of the two former dispensations who might have been saved by their faith in their own dispensation I say these very beleevers themselves could not be baptized till they had received the promise as set forth in the last times To come to particular examples we read when the Eunuch demanded of Philip Here is water what doth hinder me to be baptized Philip said if thou beleevest withall thine heart thou mayest Act. 8.36 37. From these words some gather that not a Disciple of the doctrine but a Disciple in a more strict sense a true beleever of the heart is the only subject of Baptisme Now for the clearing of this point I ask did not the Eunuch beleeve before the preaching of Philip If he were not a Proselyte how could a man of his employment be said to come from so remote a country to worship at Hierusalem Therefore it must needs be presumed that he was a true Beleever of the second dispensation But you will say what doth Philip mean when he useth these words If thou beleevest thou mayest The scope of Philip was not only to show the promised Messiah but particularly and individually to declare the Christ in the last exhibition of the promise Then Philip opened his mouth and began at that Scripture and preached to him Jesus vers 36. Hereupon the Eunuch beleeving not only a Messiah to come but also that Jesus was that particular Messiah and professing to beleeve this with all his heart he was baptized immediatly And if he had twenty children there present they had been capable of the seal of Baptisme Father and Child together To make this more clear we will go to the example of Lydia Of her it is said that the Lord opened her heart Act. 10.14 I ask then was that the first time of opening the hear of Lydia No she was a worshipper of God before The words of the text are plain Lydia a seller of purple of the City of Thyatira which worshipped God heard us She could not worship God but she must some way or other beleeve his Promise either in the first or the second exhibition thereof You will say then what is the meaning of the words The Lord opened her heart The meaning is this the Lord opened her heart to receive the promise in the third exhibition to beleeve the particular Christ that Paul preached And when she had done this she was baptized immediatly Now that it may appear to you that the promise doth appertain to Beleevers and their children in the last as in the two former dispensations she and all her houshold were baptized together Further what should be the reason that St. Paul should say to the Gaoler beleeve in the Lord and thou shalt be saved and thine house Acts 16.31 Why doth he speak of the salvation of the house upon the termes of the Gaolers beleeving but that the promise doth hold to beleevers and their children in the last exhibition thereof But if it be replyed That the Apostle spake the word of the Lord to all that were in the Gaolers house vers 32. He did so but how doth this prove that they had true faith wrought in their hearts They were all Pagans and Infidels over-night and the bare preaching of the word doth not make men beleevers as we see by experience Therefore we must conclude that the Gaoler himself only had an inward work and by a speciall evidence did receive the Christ come in the flesh hereupon he and all his servants and children as we may expound it were baptized immediately vers 33. And thus far Mr. Everard I have gone in answering your severall exceptions Now before I see how you conclude it shall not be amisse for me to adde two or three parallel Scriptures for the confirmation of the exposition which I have given If you stand upon the expression every one of you that the children cannot be intended in the Apostles words be baptized every one of you if your doubt doth lie here you may read such places of Scripture where the command is given to the Parent as to the head of the houshold both for himself and for his children Take for example those words in the institution of the passeover speak unto all the Congregation of Israel that they take every man a Lamb according to the house of their fathers a Lamb for an house And if the houshold be too little for the Lamb let him and his neighbour next to his house take it according to the number of soules every man according to his eating shall make his accompt for the Lamb. Exod. 12.3 4. Here in these words the Command is that every man take a Lamb that every man according to his eating make his accompt for the Lamb. By every man if you argue strictly is only meant every head of an houshold for the nation of Israel was divided into Tribes the Tribes into Families and the Families into Housholds and every Head is here commanded to take a Lamb. Now seeing the word of command is only to all heads of housholds will you say that the children and the houshold are not included If you will affirme this it is plain from the scope of the Text though the Command was laid upon the Parent or Head to provide yet the houshold were to eat the provisions of the Passeover So in the like case I say though the words be baptized every one of you be spoken to the Parents primarily and chiefly yet the Children are contained in the Command and the word of Command is given in a federal and Covenant sense for themselves and for their Children If you peruse the storie of the Acts of the Apostles you shall find that the truth of this was made good Such a one did beleeve and professe and was baptized he and his houshold Secondly If your doubt lie in this that the Children are not named in so many letters and syllables
teach all Nations baptizing them c. I might bring more places to prove that the children together with their parents doe make a beleeving nation And for such also that shall say that the children cannot be members in the Gospel Church-state I might alledg the ensample of the Jewes at their call in the last times For according to the prophecies it is cleare as they have been cast out and their children so at their call they shall be received and their children in a glorious manner But these few instances may serve to parallel the Commission and to shew that the children are maintained in the word them teach all Nations baptizing them Now I come to instance the absurdities in case the Children be excluded Thirdly If beleevers children be not contained in the word them teach all Nations baptizing them these absurdities will ensue First whereas in the two former dispensations father and child entered into the Church together in this last best and most large edition of the Covenant the parents shall be taken in and the children shut ouâ— Secondly If the children be not contained in the word them teach all Nations baptizing them there will be a change in the extent of the Covenant as to the particular of infants and in respect of the subject the Lord Christ will varie from the usuall way of administring the seal and yet give no warning of so great a change Thirdly If the Children be not contained in the word them teach all Nations baptizing them what difference will there be between the children of such that professe the Christ come in the flesh and the Christians of Turks his absolute enemies For if we take it as granted that the children in the last dispensation have no right to Church priviledges nor to the seale let any shew the difference between the children of beleevers and the Children of out-casts of the Covenant If they differ not in inward graces nor in outward Priveledges in what then do they differ Fourthly If the children be not contained in the word them teach all Nations baptizing them what shall we say in speciall by those of the Jewish Nation that were brought to the faith by the preaching of the Apostles will it not necessarily follow that such as did beleeve and receive the Christ come in the flesh by their beleeving the promise in the last exhibition bring losse to their Children Will it not necessarily follow that the Children formerly Church members shall come to be spoyled of Church membership the Children formerly Sealed shall come to be devested of the Seal the Children formerly in the Covenant shall come to be expunged out of the Covenant And all these dammages will follow upon the Jew his beleeving the Christ come in the flesh Fifthly If the Children be not contained in the word them teach all Nations baptizing them what will become of the comfort of Beleevers in this last dispensation There is no true Beleever in these times but he doth look upon his Children as borne in Originall sin where is then His comfort His comfort is in the Covenant But what if the Children must not be baptized What if they have no right to the Seal of the Covenant Can he presume that they have a right to the Covenant it self and to Salvation by vertue of the Covenant Where there is no title to the Seal especially in such a dispensation where a Seal is annexed to the Covenant what title is there to the Covenant it self Sixthly If the Children be not contained in the word them teach all Nations baptizing them there will be a change in the heart of Christ by his last words he will exclude them from the Seal and Church-membership of whom he said in his former exhortations Suffer little Children to come to me and forbid them not for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven Matth. 19.14 These and many other absurdities may be alledged in case Infants be excluded from Baptisme Now then if this be so what will become of those ordinary speeches of the adverse partie We want a precept we have no word of Command from Christ c. To them I may reply that they make their case worse then it is they have a word of institution to baptize Parents and Children When our Saviour saith Teach all Nations baptizing them the Children living under the Christian education are inclusively contained in the word Them We have proved this First from the remarkable circumstances of the Text Secondly by comparing the Commission with other Scriptures Thirdly by shewing the absurdities in case the Children are not contained collectively with their Parents in the Word Them Teach all Nations baptizing them Now I proceed to answer some Objections Object 1. If they say that the Word ethne Nations being a newter cannot be substantive to autous Them a word of the Masculine gender Sol. They that shall so reason let them peruse the Originall in the Old and New Testament and they shall every where find this Enallage or change of Gender To let passe all that might be brought let them consider that one Scripture concerning the loosing of Satan to seduce the Nations And he shall go forth to deceive ethne the Nations that are in the four quarters of the Earth God and Magog to gather autous them together to battell And they went up in the bredth of the Earth and compassed the Camp of the Saints and the beloved City and fire came down from God out of Heaven and devoured autous them And the Devill that deceived autous them was cast into the lake of fire c. Rev. 20 vers 8.9 10. Now here it is plain that the word autous them is three times together set in relation to the word ethne nations From whence I gather in the sence of the Commission that the word autous them must by the like reason necessarily answer to the word ethne nations and this is the naturall construction of the words Object 2. Secondly If they shall object that then the Nations as Nations will be the lawfull subject of Baptisme Sol. Not so neither It will necessarily follow that the Nations as discipled as taught as beleeving as professing Nations in this sence will be the proper subjects of Baptisme All Nations as Nations since the breaking down of the partition wall have a generall interest in preaching the Gospel Mark 16.16 compared with Matth. 10. vers 5.6 but this generall interest doth not intitle to Baptisme All Nations have a right to the Gospel preached as Nations but they have a right only to Baptisme Parents and Children so farre forth as they are under discipling and teaching and do yeeld to discipling and teaching Object 3. Thirdly if they alledge that the Commission is to be expounded by that place Joh. 4.2 Jesus made and baptized more Disciples therefore a Disciple actually made is the only subject of Baptisme Sol. That such a one is the lawfull subject of Baptisme I do willingly
and answer And therefore to begin with the first question The Question is who are the Persons to be baptized when the Apostle saith be baptized everyone of you Answ The Persons to be baptized are Beleevers and their Children Question How prove you that Beleevers Children are to be baptized Answ Beleevers Children are to be baptized because the promise is to you and your children these words immediately follow the word of Command and are added as a reason of the Command Quest How will that appear Answ It will appear in the coherence of the Apostles speech and particularly in the word For which doth joyn the parts of the Text together He exhorteth them be baptized every one of you and giveth this reason For the promise is to you and your children Therefore the promise is here repeated as the ground of the command Quest So you plead indeed for the Baptisme of children by the word of command but how do you prove the word of command Answ I prove it thus seeing there is such a near relation between the word of promise and the word of command in the Sacrament of Baptisme we may safely conclude that if the children of Beleevers have a right to be Baptized by the word of promise in the last exhibition they have a right to Baptisme by the word of Command If they have a right to be baptized by the one part they must have a right to Baptisme by the Counterpane or the other part of the word of institution In this matter we build the word of command upon the word of promise Quest Yea but the great doubt lyeth in this what the Apostle meaneth when he saith for the promise is to you and your children Answ There is no question to be made but he meaneth the grand promise of Christ as may appear by his words in the chapter following ye are the children of the Prophets and of the Covenant which God made with Abraham saying in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed Vnto you first hath God raised up his Son Jesus and hath sent him to blesse you in turning every one of you from his iniquities Acts 3.24 25. Therefore when the Apostle saith For the promise is to you and your children he meaneth to the promise of Christ made to Abraham Quest Admit this be granted what do you gather from thence Answ I gather this as that promise made to Abraham and his seed was the ground formerly on which the Lord did build the command to circumcise father and child in all the time of that administration So the Apostle doth speak to these Jewes who had crucified Christ that if they would receive him as the particular Messiah the same promise should still continue to them and their children in the new dispensation And on this doth he build the word of command to baptize father child Quest But you do here argue from infant-Circumcision unto infant-Baptisme by this way of reasoning why do you not plead the Baptisme of the males only Why do you not plead for the particular eight day and so carry the wholy analogy together Answ I do not argue from the bare analogy of Circumcision but herein lyeth the force of my reason because the promise is one and the same in the last exhibition to beleevers and their children as it was in the times of Circumcision the same word of promise exhibited in the last times doth draw in the word of command to baptize father and child And this I stand upon is the sence of Peter in the words of the Text. For the particular of the Males the eight day and such like circumstances it doth not hold in these as in that one particular of infancie These as all know are of a perishing nature but for the particular of infancy because the promise to beleevers their children doth hold from age to age from beleevers of the Jewes to beleevers of the Gentiles from beleevers in the time of the Circumcision to beleevers in the times of Baptisme Because the promise doth still hold one and the same in substance to beleevers and their children in the last dispensation Upon this ground doth the Apostle build the word of command be baptized every one of you c. Therefore the word of promise to the children now in the last exhibition doth bring in the word of command to baptize infants or to baptize in infancie Quest Well let it be admitted that the promise is to beleevers and their children now in the last dispensation it maketh not to the purpose for the Apostle saith To as many as the Lordour God shall call therefore the promise shall belong to them and to their children at the time of the call only Answ I yeeld that they that live in Gentilisme or Judaisme must be called before the promise and the Seale may he rightly applyed to them but the question is when they are once called when they once receive the Christ come in the flesh is not the promise to them and their children in the last as well as in the two former exhibitions I do affirme that the promise in the last exhibition doth appertain to beleevers and their children as long as they are no worse then such before the time of their call For First the natural seed of beleevers were called children of the Covenant in all the time of the former dispensation and that before calling Acts 3.24 25. How then can the promise in the times of the Gospel appertaine to the children only at the time of their call Secondly how can the Apostle avouch that the same promise to beleevers and their children that the same promise in substance as to the children doth descend out of the times of Circumcision into the times of Baptisme if the promise as to the children in the times of Baptisme shall be limited and circumscribed to the time of the call onely Thirdly what encouragement is this to them he spake to that they should leave the Old to come under the New Administration This were no encouragement if the promise to the children under the New Administration should belong to them at the time of the call only Fourthly what peculiar priviledge doth he promise to the children of Beleevers more then to the children of Pagans sith the promise shall be to the children of Pagans at the time of their calling The promise as to the children of Beleevers by this account will be just nothing at all Fifthly when he saith as many as the Lord our God shall call this doth relate to the words going before to them that are afarre off to wit to the Gentiles Ephes 2.11 12 13. When it shall please the Lord our God to call them to wit the Gentiles out of paganisme the promise as exhibited in the last times shall be to them and their children as formerly it was to beleevers amongst the Jewes to them and their children in their own dispensation
do erre in the other extreme For the hope of Salvation doth not lye so much in the Seal as in the Promise to which the Seal is annexed Indeed the Lord having made a Promise to Beleevers concerning their Children born in Originall sinne That he will be their God and the God of their seed in this case they must beleeve his word and where he hath ordained a Seal for the confirmation of their Faith they must take heed how they neglect to apply it they must not as more then too many do in these dayes think it a superfluous or an idle figure All that we plead is this that there is a necessity that lyeth upon beleeving Parents to baptize their Children born in Originall sinne But how the necessity is not absolute but conditionall In case the Child dye before Baptisme he may be saved by the Covenant and by the Promise of God yet I think such a Parent that doth carelesly omit his duty he will very hardly answer his neglect to God himself his Church and I think at last to his own conscience Secondly To my understanding also they go too far whosoever they be that do conclude that Baptisme doth Regenerate or that it doth confer grace by the work done It is a difficult point rightly to divide the matter between two extremes If therefore I may deliver my thoughts concerning this matter I do beleeve that as the Word preached so the Seals administred according to the minde of Christ in this they are the conduit pipes to carry the Spirit into the soules of men But how not alwayes in all men and at all times but only when it pleaseth the Lord to work by them But as to the particular of Baptisme what that Ordinance doth conferre we will resolve in answering these severall Quaeries Quaer 1. What doth Baptisme conferre to the pardon of Originall sinne in Infants Answ It is certain all that are born in the ordinary way since the fall of Adam are born in the guilt of Originall sinne Rom. 5.12.13 14. Now this is the comfort to Beleevers that in Christ the promised Seed there is pardon of this sinne to their naturall Seed Therefore if the Children of Beleevers dye before Baptisme there is hope of their Salvation by the Promise But if they dye after Baptisme the hope is not only grounded upon the Promise but it is also ratifyed by the Seal Therefore the Infants that dye unbaptized the hope of their Salvation is by Promise but the baptized Infants of beleevers have hope of Salvation both by Promise and by Seal Thus far as I conceive Baptisme doth conferre to the pardon of Originall sin in Infants Quaer 2. What doth Baptisme conferre to the pardon of Actuall sinne in men of ripe years Answ It is a sure rule that Baptisme doth not only Seal the pardon of Originall but also the pardon of Actuall sinne Ananias said to Paul Why tarriest thou arise and be baptized and wash away thy sinnes calling upon the name of the Lord. Act. 22.16 So then if the person baptized continue after Baptisme in clensing and purging out of sinne in judging and condemning himself daily for sin he may be fully assured that the Lord will continue a daily pardon of sinne As sinne is daily confessed so it shall be daily pardoned upon true confession If any doubt should arise in the Conscience concerning the continuation of pardon by the blood of Christ whether the Lord would continue to pardon such sinne as is committed after justification the Apostle saith If we confesse our sinnes he is faithfull and just to forgive us our sinnes and to clense us from all unrighteousnesse 1 Joh. 1.7 8 9. Why doth he say that he is faithfull and just to forgive sinne This doth imply that he hath somwhere bound himself by Promise to forgive sin to them that truly repent It is true he hath bound himself to the Person baptized at the time of Baptisme to forgive and to pardon sinne so far forth as sinne is repented of The Person baptized may say I am assured of this I have had it Sealed to me fourty fifty sixty years ago at the time of my Baptisme Where the Conscience doth make a question whether God will continue to pardon sinne the washing of Baptisme doth Seal the assurance thereof Quaer 3. What doth Baptisme confer to the taking away of the pollution of Originall sin in Infants Answ Though the Pelagians of old and Mr. Everard pag. 127. of late do strongly dispute that Children have no naturall pollution derived from Adam yet in this we cannot yeeld to them It is plaine from the Scope of Scripture that assoone as men have a being they have a polluted and a sinfull being In case therefore they die in infancie how is this pollution done away In this we leave them to the extraordinarie grace of God He can clense them in an extraordinarie way whom he will not suffer to come in the ordinary way to Salvation And this is all that we will say of that Question Quaer 4. What doth Baptisme confer to the taking away of the pollution of Nature in men of ripe years Answ It is plaine by experience that all that are baptized are not Regenerate Therefore we cannot look upon Baptisme but only as on a Seal of Regeneration Forasmuch as the Lord for his part doth promise to give his Spirit to the Person baptized that he may be regenerated The Person baptized for his part doth solemnly ingage himself that he will look for the Spirit which the Lord hath promised to give that so he may come to the inward washing In this as I conceive the efficacy and the use of Baptisme doth principally stand It doth principally stand in the agreement betwixt God and the Beleever the Lord for his part in the first place under his Seal doth promise to give inward grace to the clensing away of the pollution of Nature and the partie baptized doth set to his Seal that he will endeavour to clense and wash by the power and help of grace received The reason that moveth me so to think is this When the Lord saith Circumcise the foreskin of your hearts and be no more stiff-necked Deut. 10.16 Here if you go strictly to work how could he require the circumcising of the heart as spirituall and supernaturall duty how could he require this to be performed by weak and sinfull men To speak truly in all the time of that administration he did never require them to circumcise the foreskin of their hearts by their own naturall ability but he required them to look to the Promise sealed to them in the outward Circumcision of the flesh Because he required them to circumcise the foreskin of their heart in the word of Command He doth say I will circumcise thine heart and the heart of thy seed in the word of Promise Deut. 30.6 And therefore the Psalmist finding by experience that he was conceived in
sin and born in iniquity he did pray to the Lord that he would create in him a clean heart and renew within him a right Spirit Psal 51.5 10. In this he did but pray for the inward circumcision of the heart according to the word of Promise to which he had already obliged and bound himself to look after in the time of his outward circumcision The like reason may be given of the times of the New-Testament where the Lord doth command us to be renewed in the spirit of our mindes to wash to clense our selves from all pollution of flesh and spirit In this case we are not to take it as though we had an inward power to wash or clense our mindes but we are to consider when the Lord doth lay such a Command upon us it is in correspondence and relation to the Promise sealed in the Sacrament of Baptisme Because he hath promised to give his Spirit inwardly to wash and clense our Natures when we receive the outward washing we for our parts do oblige and bind our selves inwardly to wash by and through the supply of his holy Spirit Therefore to shut up all though Baptisme doth not confer Regeneration yet by that Ordinance the Lord doth bind himself to give his Spirit toward that inward Regeneration so far forth as we do and shall endeavour to look after his Promise And thus far I have gone in clearing the Text from two great mistakes I do not plead from the words except ye be born of Water and of the Spirit an absolute necessity of Baptisme by the outward Element of Water but only a conditionall I do not plead that all who are outwardly baptized are inwardly Regenerated But that the Lord doth enter into Covenant with them to give his regenerating Spirit so far forth as they look and wait for it in the use of those means which he hath appointed This is all that I do desire to speak concerning this matter and I do it the rather because I would not give offence I hope then that I shall be more willingly heard when I prove a precept both for the Baptisme of Infants and for the necessity of their Baptisme from this Scripture The probation of the Precept doth lye in two particulars First by Water is meant the outward water in Baptisme as it doth referre to the inward washing of the Spirit Secondly because children are born in Originall sinne there doth lye a necessity upon the Parents to bring them to Baptisme the Seal of their Regeneration That the outward Baptisme of Water is here meant the reasons that move me so to judge are these First the generall consent of all antiquity together with many late Writers agree in it that the externall elementarie Baptisme is here intended as a Seal of the inward washing Secondly it is more immediate to the words of the Text to take the washing of water as the outward signe and the washing of the Spirit as the inward grace Thirdly other places of Scripture do carrie but one and the same sence The washing of Baptisme is called the washing of Regeneration Tit. 3.5 And the reason is this because the inward washing of the Spirit in Regeneration is sealed with the outward washing in Baptisme Now is this all one with the birth by Water and by the Spirit But if any man shall stand in it that these and many other Scriptures cannot be meant of water-Baptisme then I would intreat him to show me the reason why the work of Regeneration in the New Testament is so often called by the title and by the name of washing There is a purging by fire so mettalls are refined Mal. 3.3 There is a purging by wind so the corn is clensed Math. 3.12 Why then is the clensing and purging and the inward renewing of the heart so frequently set forth by the washing of water I think all will easily agree in it because the outward washing is appointed as a Seal of the inward washing of the new birth If this be so the birth by water must needs refer to the water of Baptisme as to the outward signe Fourtly that which hath moved some late Writers to depart from this interpretation for the reason that hath moved them we can clearly make it appear that other Scriptures have the like show of dfficultie of which no question is to be made but they speak of outward Baptisme If some of them apprehend that the present text Except a man be borne of water and of the spirit cannot be meant of outward baptisme because then the baptisme of water would be absolutely necessary to salvation He that is troubled with this difficulty let him consider that place He that beleeveth and is baptized shall be saved Mark 16.16 In these words no man doubteth but the Lord Christ doth point to the outward baptisme by water and in a sort he doth say that this baptisme is necessary to salvation How then are the words to be expounded We must take them in this sence that faith is more absolutely necessary to salvation yet in a sort it is true that baptisme is necessary as the outward meane Why else should our Saviour say He that beleeveth and is baptized shall be saved We may in the present case give the same exposition According to the manifest course of divine dispensation we come to salvation by the new birth and in the ordinary way so farre as it may conveniently be had the outward washing is a seale of the inward washing of the Spirit These and many more reasons might be brought to prove that the outward Baptisme is intended in the words Except a man be borne of water and of the Spirit But in so plaine a case these shall suffice Now we come to prove the Precept First If it be granted that the outward elementary baptisme is here intended I think it will easily follow in the conscience of every beleeving parent that there is a necessity lyeth upon him to bring his child to baptisme For if the Lord Christ that giveth salvation doth require the outward baptisme of Water and the inward baptisme of the Spirit both these as the ordinary meane to salvation in such a case for a parent that is mindful of the salvation of his infant it is not for him curiously to dispute whether an Infant unbaptized may be saved But it lyeth upon him to do that which is required and so to avoid the danger But let us more particularly insist upon the Baptisme of Infants the word of command must necessarily be applyed because of the pollution of their natural birth The scope of the text is chiefly concerning these three particulars First that all by nature are defiled with Original sin Secondly there is a necessity of the new birth Thirdly the outward washing in baptisme is a seale of the inward washing This being laid as a ground that the Infant is borne in Original sin and that the outward baptisme is a seale of
the Children of Beleevers have a right to be baptized by the word of Command And so consequently there is a word of Command in the New Testament to baptize Beleevers and their Children The connexion is proved from the convertibility and mutuall relation between the word of Promise and the word of Command and therefore if the Children of Beleevers have a right to be baptized by the one they must have a right to be baptized by the other The consequence is clear and for the assumption it is proved by St. Peters own words For the Promise is to you and your children This is my argument To this on the first of May I received a certain Paper by way of answer the substance of which was briefly this For the convertibility of the word of Promise and the word of Command they said I took it as granted I had affirmed it only but had not proved it therefore there was no such mutuall relation And for the assumption they said that the Children of Beleevers have no right to be baptized by the word of Promise seeing that the Promise is meant only of extraordinary gifts vers 16 17. Seeing that Infants in these our dayes are not capable of such gifts they knew no right they had to be baptized by vertue of that Promise This was the substance of the Paper which they sent to me on the first of May. And my returne to them on the third of June was briefly this Whereas they did deny the convertibility between the word of Promise and the word of Command I did endeavour to prove it by these reasons that follow First from particular examples in the Sacrament of Circumcision the word of Promise is I will be thy God and the God of thy seed in relation to this Promise the Lord did command Abraham to circumcise all his Males Gen. 17.7 8 9. In this institution there is a mutuall relation and convertibility between the word of Promise and the word of Command For as many as had a right to be circumcised by the word of Promise had a right to be circumcised by the word of Command Again as many as had a right to be circumcised by the word of Command had a right to be circumcised by the word of Promise there must needs be then a convertibility between these two in the Sacramentall action Again in the Institution of the Passover the Lord was pleased to make a gaacious promise to the children of Israel When I see the blood I will passe over you and the plague shall not be upon you when I smite the land of Egypt Exod. 12.13 In relation to this Promise the Lotd commanded them to take the blood and to strike it upon the two side-posts and upon the upper door-posts of the houses where they should eat the Lamb. This was a Type of Christ where his blood is there will be deliverance from wrath Now in this as in the former institution there is a Convertibility between the word of Promise and the word of Command For as many as had a word of Promise to escape the plaguing Angel had a word of command to strike the blood upon the door-posts And as many as had a word of Command to strick the blood upon the door-posts so many had a word of Promise to escape the plaguing Angel The convertibility between these two might be further proved from such Promises which it hath pleased the Lord to signifie to the sons of men by outward signes and figures But these are sufficient Secondly This is made manifest by the generall nature of Covenants between men and men There must needs be a convertibility between these two parts that do contract as may appear by the Indentures between them If this be so in the general nature of Covenants it must necessarily hold in the Sacramental Covenant betwixt God and man There must needs be between the word of Promise which is Gods part and the word of Command that doth contain the duty of man in the Sacramentall action there must needs be I say between these two a near relation Thirdly this is evident from the very definition of a Sacrament For the form and being of a Sacrament by and through which it is defined doth stand in the analogie proportion correspondence mutuall relation between the outward signe set forth in the word of Command and the inward grace contained in the word of Promise Now then if there be no mutuall habitude and relation between these two we shall take away the very being and form of a Sacrament Fourthly this doth appear from the weaknesse of that which is usually alledged to the contrary and therefore though it may be true as some say that a Promise may be without a Seal Yet when men have once put their Seal it is necessary that there must be a correspondence between the Seal and the Covenant In like manner it is not absolutely necessary that the Covenant of grace or the word of Promise should be set forth by outward signes that appear to the sences yet the Lord having once in the word of Institution appointed the outward sign to signifie the inward grace in such a case as this is it is necessary that there should be a mutuall relation between the word of Promise and the word of Command They that deny this to my understanding do not only go against the experience of Beleevers but also against the common sense of men Now to gather up all into one summe it is clear First from particular examples Secondly from the general nature of Covenants Thirdly from the definition of a Sacrament standing in relation Fourthly from the weaknesse of that which is usually alledged to the contrary From all these it is evident that there is a mutuall relation between the word of Promise and the word of Command And so I came to confirm the union of the copulative proposition If the children of Beleevers have a right to be baptized by the word of Promise they must have a right to be baptized by the word of Command The consequence is firme and there is a necessary union between both parts And thus I did endeavour to prove to the Brethren of the Separation the truth of that which I did affirm I came to the assumption Secondly whereas they say the promise to you and your children is meant principally of extraordinary gifts and Infants in our dayes are not capable of these For the more effectuall proof of the point I did endeavour to show that this Promise could not only or principally be meant of extraordinary gifts but in a positive sense it pointed to the Covenant of grace and was the very promise made to Abraham The arguments which I did alledge were these First If the promise to you and your children be only and principally meant of extraordinary gifts let any man show what kind of comfort this would minister to men of a troubled spirit that they should
speak with divers kinds of languages What a weak support would this be if this be all the comfort contained in the Promise On the contrary if you take the Promise for the Covenant of grace for the ordinary word of promise concerning free remission of sinne by the blood of Christ sealed in the Sacrament of Baptisme there is nothing more proper then to comfort a languishing spirit by such a Promise Secondly if the Promise to you and your children be meant of extraordinary gifts how will the parts of the Text agree with each other The Apostle doth exhort them be baptized every one of you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sinne And then he giveth this reason for the Promise is to you and your children If therefore the Promise be meant only or principally of extraordinary gifts then the Command be baptized every one of you will stand in immediate relation to such a Promise And so the matter will come to this issue that all that are baptized and particularly they that renounce their old to take up a new Baptisme they will have a promise made to them and to their children to speak with divers kinds of languages On the other side if the Promise be taken for the Promise of Christ and for remission of sinne by his blood in this case it will be easie to shew the connexion of the words For what can be more aptly spoken then this Be baptized every one of you in the name of the Lord Jesus for the remission of your particular sinne for the promise of the pardon of sinne by the blood of the Christ doth belong to you and your children Thirdly if the promise to you and your children be only meant of extraordinary gifts how can the words of the Apostle be made good when he saith to all that are afar off to as many as the Lord our God shall call Will any man avouch that to as many as the Lord our God shall call the Promise shall be to them and their children to speak with divers kinds of tongues then the Promise will be to all the Saints from the comming of Christ to the end of the world that they shall speak with divers kinds of languages On the other side let the Promise be taken for that promise made to Abraham In thy seed shall all the families of the Earth be blessed this Promise at least in the general priviledges offers tenders and workings doth passe to all that do beleeve and their children whether they be near as beleevers of the Jews or whether they be afar off as beleevers of the Gentiles the Promise doth passe to all as long as they are no worse then Beleevers Children These were the reasons that moved me to affirm that the Promise to you and your children could not be meant of extraordinary gifts First this Promise alone could not comfort Peters hearers in their trouble Secondly it could not answer the word of Command be baptized every one of you Thirdly it could not be said to extend to as many as the Lord our God shall call On the other side if this be applyed to the Covenant of grace all circumstances will agree that the Promise is to Beleevers and their Children And to this doth the Apostle referre the word of Command to Fathers and Children bee baptized every one of you For the words Ye shall receive the holy Ghost I confesse they are meant of extraordinary gifts the appendant annexed to the primitive Baptisme which were peculiar to those times of the Church only For the Apostles having to do either with Gentiles to bring them out of Paganisme or with Jews to bring them out of Judaisme these extraordinary gifts were given to men for their more abundant confirmation in that Faith which they were to receive Acts 10.44 45 46. with Acts 11.15 16. This I do willingly confesse but when the Apostle saith for the Promise is to you and your children he doth point here to the grand fundamental Promise made to Abraham In thy seed shall all the families of the Earth be blessed His meaning is that if these Jews which had crucified Christ would come in and take him as the promised Seed if they would take him as the Messiah the Promise should still continue to them and to their natural seed aswell as in the former dispensation This is his meaning when he saith for the promise is to you and your Children and in relation to this Promise did he exhort them to be baptized Father and Child Thus far I went in the vindication of both propositions and in restoring of the force of my argument against the first assault On the third of Junne I delivered the substance of this reply into the hands of Mr. Everard since that time he hath been known to me and hath undertaken the matter But to say the truth I received no answer from him till the fifth of September Then I received a Paper full fraught with scornfull language and the next newes about three or four weekes after was that we had put his answer in print with a title prefixed Baby Baptisme routed In this I take my self to have none of the best usage from him First that he should put the matter publickly In print when wee were onely in a private way of inquirie Secondly that he should give his pamphlet the title of Baby Baptisme routed before we came to the tryall Thirdly that he should slight the maine body of my paper with all the inforcements and yet glory of a totall conquest when of many parts he had scarce brought one to the incounter For these reasons I think he hath not delt well with me Because his Book was lately printed for WILLIAM LEARNER at the Blackmoor in Bishops-gate street and because now it is in the hands of all men I will forbear to insert it Only my reply to the cheif particulars of his answer is as followeth The Argument of Nathaniel Stephens Minister for the Baptisme of Beleevers Children recruited and vindicated from the exceptions of Mr. Robert Everard in his book intituled Baby-Baptisme routed GOod Sir since the arrivall of your answer I have taken it into consideration and so far as I apprenend it may be conveniently divided into three parts First you endeavour to prove that my Argument hath no ground from the words of Peter Secondly you would bear me in hand that the structure of it is not good and that the premises do not hold due proportion with the conclusion Thirdly you do lay down terms of consent how far we agree and terms of dissent how far we disagree And so state the Question in the close of all Sir This is a strange kind of method that hath been in part the cause of your Wilde Discourse Yet neverthelesse as the course of the matter doth require I will only take the liberty to lay down the state of the Question as you your self do expresse
say be baptized every one of you is a word of Command to beleeving Parents and their Children but that I tear these words from the true sense and meaning of Peter this I deny For in a federall or covenant sense the children are said to repent in their Parents that do undertake for them And therefore if you will have the Text to be read according to Peters true meaning it must runne after this tenour Be baptized every one of you and your children for the promise is to you and your children According to this construction the children may be said to repent and Covenant with God in their Parents and the Parents may be said to Covenant for their Children If this be so you may easily discerne that the words be baptized every one of you are not plucked and torne from Repent and Now that the Children may be said to repent to professe to Covenant either with or in their Parents I can bring many proofs for the same out of Scripture If I can prove this I hope you will have no such cause to accuse me of felony of stealing the words be baptized every one of you from the words Repent and. You might have spared your paines to come after me with a printed Hu-an-cry as you call it thirteen weeks and three-dayes after the pretended theft was committed You do no lesse when you use these words pag. 5. lin 30. Mr. Stephens now I have finished my Hu-an-cry and it hath been so serviceable that you are catched with the words which you stole out of the pocket of that Text Act. 2.38 Sir this is a hard charge if you could prove it But to clear my self of this imputation I will prove that in a federall sense Children may be said to repent and Covenant in their Parents To begin with the example of the Children mentioned Deut. 29. because this is a plain and pregnant place I will draw it out more at length for your better information In these words note first a Covenant secondly the motives thirdly the Covenanters or the persons that did Covenant For the Covenant it is this that the people should chuse the Lord to be their God and that they should not turn from him to serve the gods of the nations And the Lord on his part did Covenant to choose the people for his people to performe the promise made to Abraham vers 9.12 13 17 18. This was the substance of the Covenant Secondly the motives to move them to Covenant because the Lord had delivered them out of Egypt with great signes and temptations he had led them through the Wildernesse fourty years their clothes waxed not old upon them nor the shoe waxed old upon their feet Besides he had fed them in an extraordinary manner he had given them drink out of the Rock and had delivered them out of the hands of mighty Kings These were the arguments to induce them to Covenant vers 2 3 4. c. Thirdly to come to the point we are upon let us consider the persons who they were that were Covenanters and they are expressed in these words Ye stand all of you this day before the Lord your God your Captaines of your Tribes your Elders your officers with all the men of Israel your little ones and your wives and the stranger that is in thy Camp from the hewer of thy wood to the drawer of thy water That thou shouldest enter into Covenant with the Lord thy God vers 10.11 12. From these words you may gather that Children may Covenant and that together with their Parents the Lord may look upon them as Covenanters If this be so pray tell me of what value your argument is when you say Repent and be baptized every one of you cannot be spoken to Father and Child You bind upon this that Children cannot repent because they have not the first principle of profession pag. 3. lin 32. Now pray Mr. Everard tell me plainly and sincerely what do you think of the little ones expressed in the Text Were they not Covenanters Had they not the first principle of profession If that be true which you say that little ones have not that first principle that they cannot professe Why did they then stand before the Lord before the Arke of the Testimony with the most publick and representative persons with the Elders of the Tribes to enter into Covenant If you shall alledge that this is an instance out of the Old Testament and then was the Church state of the Jews I do confesse as much but this doth not void the force of the reason For when you say that Children cannot Covenant that they have not the first principle of profession you do not reason only against the particular Children of this or that dispensation but against the children of any dispensation Therefore I say on the contrary if the children of Beleevers in the Jewish Church state may be said to Covenant there is nothing doth exclude but that Beleevers children in these last times may be said to professe repent Covenant and come into the Church together with their Parents Further let us look into the reason wherefore in that dispensation the Lord did so strictly and universally call upon all sorts to enter into Covenant The reason is expressed in these words Lest there should be among you any man or woman or familie or tribe whose heart turneth this day away from the Lord our God to go and serve other gods of these nations lest there should be among you a root that beareth wormwood or gall vers 18. The Lord did so strictly cal upon all yea upon little ones to enter into Covenant they and their Parents together that there should not be a branch or a root among them that might depart from the Lord. Now Sir do you think that it was to no purpose to engage the children because they had not as you say the first principle of profession Do you think that in processe of time these children might lawfully go after other gods without breach of Covenant and then plead what you alledge to wit that in their minority they could not bind themselves they had not the first principle of profession But to come to our own times there are as you know many Christian men carried prisoners into Turkie and when they are there they are strongly urged to deny the Faith and to turne Mahumetans In this case they dare not yeeld for fear of the breach of Covenant for fear of violating their promise made to the Lord Christ in their Baptisme In this exigency Sir I do desire to put the question to you whether this may be said to be breach of Covenant yea or no I do it the rather because in the Postscript of your Answer you jeer at Mr. Angel of Leicester for saying that witches after conviction say that the Devil perswaded them to deny their first Baptisme Therefore Sir I do put it upon you to answer
especially from the word For which as a band doth unite and couple the two parts of the Text together He exhorteth them first be baptized every one of you and then useth this motive for the promise is to you and your children Now on the other side if your assertion be true that the words be baptized every one of you cannot be spoken to Father and Child how will this answer to the motive For the promise is to you and your children And what will become of the word For the band or the connexive particle that knits the parts of the sentence together Sir By this time you may understand who the man is that may be likned to a theevish Gleaner that doth dragge out St. Peters words by the eares and doth spoile the union of the sentence I will conclude with your own words pag. 5. lin 22 Sir I desire you to take heed that place do not fall upon your head Rev. 22.18 for I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the Prophecy of this book If any man shall take away from the words of the book of this Prophecie God shall take away his part out of the book of Life and out of the holy City and from the things which are written in this book I come now briefly to your other particulars Secondly You say that these words be baptized every one of you were spoken to the same You which the Apostle directed his speech unto and you never read of any Command given to Infants but on the contrary Deut. 11.2 pag. 6. lin 15. I answer these words were mediatly and secondarily spoken to the children though they were primarily and immediatly directed to the Parents that did engage for them In the institution of circumcision the Lord saith This is my Covenant which you shall keep betwixt me and you and thy seed after thee every manchild among you shall be circumcised and ye shall circumcise the flesh of the foreskin and it shall be a token of the Covenant betwixt me and you And the uncircumcised manchild whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised he shall be cut off from his people he hath broken my Covenant Gen. 17.10 11 14. Here in these words the Command is principally and explicitely given to the Parents yet so as it is secondarily and inclusively spoken to the children that do enter into Covenant either in or with their Parents If this be not a truth how can it be said the uncircumcised man-child shall be cut off from his people he hath broken my Covenant If he may be cut off from his people for breach of Covenant he may be supposed to Covenant and the Lord may look upon him in the notion of a Covenanter Whereas you say you never read of any Command given to Infants but on the contrary Deut. 11.2 I pray you let us read the Text And I know you this day for I speak not with your children which have not known and which have not seen the chastisement of the Lord your God his greatnesse his mighty hand and his stretched out arme and his miracles and his acts which he did in the midst of Egypt c. Here I demand shall we absolutely conclude that God did not speak at all to the children of these parents who only were eye-witnesses of his miracles done in Egypt Surely then we must conclude that all the exhortation in Moses his law did concerne the Parents only that were then alive and not the children in after generations Doth not this glosse crosse the whole scope of Scripture Do we not read everywhere that the Parents were to teach their children and that the children were to remember the wonders and miracles which the Lord had done in Egypt For the Text the scope of it is this Moses doth more specially exhort them that were alive to love the Lord their God to keep his charge and his statutes vers 1. because their eyes had seen all the great acts which he had done vers 7. Now Sir Whereas it is said that the Lord did not speak to the children you cannot conclude this absolutely that he did not speak to them at all but only respectively in that particular sense Now what is this but a fallacy as Logicians terme it à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter But supposing that these words could not be spoken to the children you go on and enquire whether they were spoken to the Apostles when you say to me pag. 6. lin 23. But happily you conceive that in these words a Commission was given to the Apostles to baptize Father and Child but be baptized every one of you cannot help you there neither For if these had been words spoken to the Apostles then the Apostles had been commanded to repent and be baptized Such a dexterity you have to make difficulties where none be Therefore to the clearing of this matter from this mist which you would purposely cast over it you are to note in the administration of Baptisme there is the administrator and the person baptizing and there is the subject and person baptized Now I say the Command doth extend to both it doth extend to the Administrator to minister Baptisme from the Commission of Christ and it doth appertain to Beleevers to receive Baptisme they and the children under their education when they come to professe the Christ come in the flesh In case the Parents neglect the bringing of their children to Baptisme they do in sense omit the publick profession of the Faith a considerable part of which is to engage themselves and those that live under their education to the Lord Christ But now to the third point Thirdly You say it is a great mistake to judge these Jews to whom Peter spake to be Beleevers they are your own words If there were no beleeving Parents there could be no Beleevers Infants Sir I do agree with you that the Consequence is good but that these men who were exhorted by the Apostle to be baptized they and their children that they were not looked upon by him in the notion of Beleevers before Baptisme this I deny Indeed according to the usuall method of your partie whose cheif designe is to make the people you bring in two or three simple reasons of your own to prove them Beleevers and patch them upon my back as if I were the author of them But first I do not say because the Promise did belong to them that therefore they were Beleevers for then all the seed of Israel would be Beleevers of the last dispensation Secondly Neither do I say because they were cut to the heart and had the spirit of bondage that therefore they were Beleevers for to speak truly a Beleever doth make speciall application of the general promise but the spirit of bondage doth arise from the particular assent to the general threats Yet neverthelesse in the particularity of the sin from whence the spirit of bondage
in the word of Command To my understanding this should satisfie that they are afterward plainly expressed in the word of promise It is a usuall thing in Scripture to supply the meaning of the words that go before by the sense and construction of the words that follow after Many instances might be brought to prove such a supply but I will choose one rather which is proper to the case of Baptisme And so you will come to have not only a precept but also a convenient number of examples in the New Testament for the Baptisme of Infants The place is this Crispus the chief ruler of the Synagogue beleeved on the Lord withall his house And many of the Corinthians hearing beleeved and were baptized Acts 18.8 Now out of these words Mr. Everard I do desire to put a double question to your consideration The first is this Whether in the sense of this Scripture was not Crispus and his house baptized as well as the rest of the Corinthians that did beleeve Here if you go to the strictnesse of the Letter the other Corinthians that did beleeve were only baptized As for Crispus and his houshold they are said to beleeve Crispus the chief ruler of the Synagogue beleeved on the Lord with all his house Here only is mention made of their beleeving but not the least word of their Baptisme What then shall we say that they were not baptized at all He that will affirme this let him show a reason why the other Corinthians beleeving should be baptized and Crispus a prime Beleever with his houshold should be exempt from Baptisme Secondly to put all out of doubt whosoever they were of the beleeving Corinthians that were baptized whosoever the persons were that did baptize them it is clear from another place that Crispus the chief ruler of the Synagogue was baptized with Pauls own hand I thank God I baptized none of you saith Paul speaking to the Corinthians but Crispus and Gaius 1 Cor. 1.14 If this be so it is manifest that the Text in the Acts must be read with a supply the latter part must expound the meaning of the former The words must needs go after this tenor Crispus the chief ruler of the Synagogue beleeved on the Lord with all his house and was baptized and many of the Corinthians beleeving were baptized Here that which is wanting in the former part of the verse must be supplied with the sense of that part which commeth after or else how shall we reconcile the Scriptures Now in the like case let us have liberty when we read be baptized every one of you to supply the former with the sense of the words that follow after and we shall have a plain precept from the Baptisme of Beleevers and their Children The words must runne thus Be baptized every one of you and your children for the Promise is to you and your children But now Mr. Everard supposing that Crispus and his houshold were baptized as you can suppose no other if you will prove constant to your own principles of Beleevers Baptisme I say then in the second place Whether among the Corinthians that did beleeve through grace was the houshold of Crispus the only houshold that was baptized If we go to the precise Letter of the Text there is only mention made of the houshold of Crispus and not any word of the houshold of any other Beleever in the City of Corinth What then shall we say That no other Beleevers houshold was baptized in that City This cannot be for though Crispus was a prime Beleever yet we may well imagine that other houses of Beleevers had the same priviledge To put the matter out of question whosoever they were that did administer Baptisme to the rest of the Corinthians it is evident that the houshold of Stephanas was baptized with Pauls own hand For he speaking to the Corinthians thus saith I baptized the houshold of Stephanas and I know not whether I baptized any other 1 Cor. 1.16 Therefore to reconcile one Scripture with another we must needs read the forementioned place in the Acts after this manner Crispus the chief ruler of the Synagogue beleeved on the Lord and was baptized he and his houshold and many of the Corinthians hearing beleeved and were baptized they and their housholds If this interpretation be true as I know not how else to make the Scriptures to agree then we have not only one or two or three but many examples in the New Testament for baptizing Beleevers with their housholds Further I may collect also in those times it was a usuall manner among the Corinthians when the Parent did beleeve and professe it was ordinary for him and his houshold to be baptized together And therefore when particular mention is made of the houshold of Crispus we are not to take it in that sense as though they were the only beleeving Familie in the Citie of Corinth but the meaning is this As Crispus a leading and a prime Beleever the Ruler of the Synagogue was baptized he and his houshold So the rest of the Corinthians after the pattern of Crispus beleeving were baptized they and their housholds From whence we gather That a beleeving houshold in the third and last dispensation is to be taken in that sense and notion as ever before in the two former Administrations of the Promise In the two former Administrations for two thousand years from Adam to Abraham and for two thousand years from Abraham to Christ a beleeving houshold was that where the Parent did professe himself and did engage his Familie to the profession of the Faith And in this sense must we needs take a beleeving houshold in the third dispensation when Crispus the Ruler of the Synagogue did beleeve with all his houshold and when many of the Corinthians did beleeve with all their housholds We are not to take it as though every one did in person beleeve and professe but that they did every one live under the education and instruction of the Christian Faith But if any shall urge that the words of the Text are for actuall profession and for actuall faith before Baptisme because it is said Many of the Corinthians hearing beleeved and were baptized If any shall urge that the Corinthians only that did hear and beleeve were baptized he that shall so argue I would intreat him to show me in what place or in what ranke he will set the children of these Corinthians that did beleeve through grace If he will say that the Children in their Families were out-casts of the Covenant then let him show the meaning of this Scripture The unbeleeving husband is sanctified by the wife and the unbeleeving wife is sanctified by the husband else were your children unclean but now are they holy 1 Cor. 7.14 There must needs be a sense assigned how the children of the Corinthians and other Grecians being profane by nature may be said to be holy by the Parents beleeving
Though much hath been written and said to finde out this or that interpretation yet for my part I cannot possibly find out a sense how the Children of the Corinthians as born of one or two beleeving Parents may be said to be holy if this be not meant of Covenant holynesse In the two former dispensations for four thousand years together the children of beleevers were accounted the sons of God Gen. 6.2 3. The holy Seed Ezra 9.2 The holy People Dan. 8.24 The Children of the Kingdome Matth. 8.11 The Children of the Covenant Act. 3.25 And such like expressions Therefore when the Apostle speaketh of the Children of the beleeving Corinthians that because one or both Parents did beleeve and professe therefore the Children were holy I cannot understand this any other way but of the Birth-priviledge of Beleevers Children now in the last aswell as in the two former editions of the Promise Therefore when it is said in the Text that many of the Corinthians beleeving were baptized I cannot see how the words can bear any other sense but this Many of the Corinthians beleeving were baptized they and their housholds as Crispus the chief ruler of the Synagogue beleeved and was baptized he and his houshould The Analogue doth stand between Crispus and other Beleevers between the houshold of Crispus and the housholds of other Beleevers and this I take to be the true meaning of the Text. I have stayed the longer upon this point to show that we have not only a Precept but a competent number of examples out of the New Testament for the Baptisme of Beleevers and their Children But now Sir lest you should take occasion to cavill at examples aswell as at the Precept I will insist upon the former part of the verse and urge you only with this question Whether do you think that Crispus beleeving on the Lord with all his house was baptized with the rest of the Corinthians yea or no If you deny it how will you prove constant to your own principles of Beleevers Baptisme Why should not Crispus a prime Beleever be baptized aswell as the rest of the Corinthians that did beleeve through grace But if you affirme it as affirm it you must then it is necessary seeing his Baptisme is not expressed in so many Letters that you supply the former part of the Verse with the sense of the words that follow after Now let me do the like with Peters words and you shall find an excellent harmonie Then Peter said repent and be baptized every one of you and your children in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sinne for the Promise belongs to you and your children So I beleeve the words of Peter and desight to hear their sweet agreement I do delight to read the Children in the word of Command seeing they are so plainly expressed in the word of Promise Now Sir let us see how you conclude You bid me as I tender the life of my argument to have him to some other place for relief You tell me pag. 12. lin 1. that you have received an order from Quarter-Master Generall that the tent of my argument be removed from the Text that it may no longer cumber the holy ground it being appointed for a piece of service more honourable Surely Sir when you wrote these things I cannot otherwise think but that you had some high opinion of your own performance Whereas you advise me to have my argument to some other place belike you would have me to understand that you had according to the title of your book conquered all before you But I will assure you Sir to deal plainly with you and that you may not flatter your self you are so far from taking my chief Fort as you pretend that you have not at all or at least in small degree given an assault thereunto And then let any Logician in the world judge what reason you had to glory in your conquest You stand much upon my rending and tearing asunder the words be baptized every one of you from the words Repent and Now this is not so for in a Covenant sence the Children do repent or make profession of repentance in the Parents that do undertake for them But if this could be proved what is it to the force of my Argument which you undertake to answer The medium the middle terme or the reason from the words of the text is not from the words be baptized every one of you as you would make the reader beleeve but from these words for the Promise is to you and your Children Because the Children are plainly expressed in the word of promise this is to me a true ground wherefore they are contained in the word of Command Now let any man judge that reads Baby-Baptisme routed or the taking of the chief Fort as it is in the title of your Pamphlet what you have done in the body of your answer against the principall medium against the right that the Children have to Baptisme by the word of Promise Seeing you did grant the Proposition it was needfull to spend your force upon the assumption Again Mr. Everard you insist upon this that the Jews the whole Nation of them because they had a right to the word of Promise why had they not a right to Baptisme by the word of Command Here you make a faire flourish upon the generality of the promise without any distinction at all But whosoever he is that will distinguish the severall dispensations of one and the same promise and the right that Beleevers and their Children have to the Seal in each dispensation he shall find that you have said just nothing And you that talked so much of taking the chief Fort have stollen away secretly from it as the enemy did from the seige of Bergen-ap-Zome in the smoake of Gun-powder Further suppose there had been some weaknesse in my Argument yet there is no such cause as you advise to remove its Tent from the coasts of the Text for I will assure you as long as I read these words For the Promise is to you and your Children as long as I read these words in the last exhibition of the Promise and a promise answering the word of Command as long as I read a convertibility between the word of Command and the word of Promise in Baptisme aswell as in other Sacraments I shall be loath to obey the order which you say you have received from Quarter-Master Generll to discharge me of the Text. But seeing you will needs be so pitifull to a poor Argumeet in your apprehension beaten upon the Ice I would intreat you that you would not deal so unkindly with him as to remove him from the Text. For if I be not greatly mistaken this Scripture is not so barren to afford one only Argument but it is a wel-spring and Fountaine of Arguments for the Baptisme of Beleevers and their Children When you come to tryall