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
the washing away of the pollution of sin by the Spirit of Christ upon such a supposition I think we may not use many arguments to the beleeving parent to bring his Infant to the washing of baptisme No man can be ignorant where the disease is there is a need of the remedy And therefore when our Saviour doth presse a necessity of washing both by Water and the Spirit he doth not urge this so immediatly in reference to actual sinne as in reference to birth-sinne and to the naturall pollution in which infants are born The consideration of the guilt and the pollution of the birth-sin doth draw in the necessitie of Infant-Baptisme And therefore in the former ages of the Church we shall find all along that they that vnderstood the vilenesse of the naturall pollution as Augustin and others they were more forward for baptisme in infancie On the other side those that thought infants to be free from all Originall pollution as derived from Adam for of this Judgment were the Pelagians of old and Mr. Everard and his followers of late they both were and now are most laxe and carelesse in the performance of that dutie to their own children But if this will not convince let it be considred in the feare of God wherefore there was such a strict command given to the Jewes to circumcise their infants in their dispensation If the like reason doth hold that Infants have now one and the same need of the seal of the new-birth vnder this last aswell as they had under their dispensation why should not parents now make the same conscience to bring their children to the seal of regeneration or the new birth now as well as then That the Lord did so strictly command circumcision and that the foreskin should be cut off by this the Jewish infant did declare that the verie nature was defiled which he received by carnall generation from his parents and which by generation he was like to traduce and conveigh unto his children By this the Jewish infant did signifie the pollution of his naturall birth and that he needed to have Originall corruption or the uncircumcision of the flesh to be done away by the Spirit of Christ Now is not the case all one with the Christian Infants born in Originall sin have not they the same need of the washing of Regeneration whereof the washing in Baptisme is a Seal The reason being the same I know nothing to the contrary but that a Beleever in the last dispensation may take these words Except a man be born of Water and of the Spirit as a Precept for Infant-Baptisme Now that Circumcision in the former and Baptisme in the latter dispensation do point to one and the same thing to the clensing away of the pollution of the naturall birth by the Spirit of Christ we have a clear testimony for this from Col. 2.11 12 13. In the words immediatly going before the Apostle did exhort them beware lest any man spoyle you through Philosophy c. By Philosophy we are not to understand the spurious and the bastard kind but he doth mean the best Ethicall Philosophy in Aristotle or Plato when men put it in the place of a Christ The principles of the best Philosophy are these That a man new born into the world is like a white sheet of Paper that he hath no Originall pollution that he hath in him the seed of all morality that he hath liberty of will that the habite of vertue is attainable by the repetition of many acts These are the cheif elements of the best morall Philosophy Now the Apostle showeth that these Rudiments of Philosophy are most destructive to the faith of Christ For the prime foundation of the Christian faith is contrarily to beleeve that all are defiled with Originall sinne by the naturall birth that there is no other way of clensing but by the regenerating spirit of Christ For the consirmation of this he doth referre them to the first Rudiments of Baptisme in this last and of Circumcision in the former dispensation For circumcision he saith in effect that the foreskin of the flesh was cut off to signifie the putting away of the uncircumcision of the flesh in the heart Ye also are circumcised with a Circumcision made without hands in putting off the body of the lusts of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ And for Baptisme he saith in effect that they were doused and washed in water to signifie the washing and clensing of the naturall birth by the regenerating spirit of Christ Therefore Circumcision and Baptisme do both agree in this that Infants are born in their naturall pollution and that this pollution is only to be done away by the clensing vertue of the holy Spirit Therefore if any man demand of us a Precept for the Baptisme of Infants I cannot see but in a sence it is true that the same necessity doth lie upon us to baptize our Infants born in Originall sinne as did upon them to circumcise For though we are not to follow the Jew in things peculiar to his own dispensation yet those actions that are done by him upon such grounds that are of morall perpetuall and common concernment to one person aswell as another to one Church aswell as another in one age aswell as another none can deny these actions to be obligatory to all as a standing Rule for after generations Therefore seeing the birth in Originall sinne and the clensing of nature by the Spirit of Christ are of common concernment to the Jewish and to the Christian Infants there is a morality in it that our Infants should be made partakers of the Seal of Regeneration in Infancy as well as theirs If the reason did not hold one and the same something might be said to the contrary But seeing that Infants are now born in Originall sinne and Baptisme is now also the Seal of the new-Birth I cannot see but the same necessity in substance as upon them to Circumcise so it doth lie upon Beleevers now to baptize their infants The necessity so farre as I apprehend doth lie couched in these words Except ye be born of Water and of the Spirit Therefore Infants being involved in their naturall pollution have now a need of the Seal of the new-Birth But if all this will not satisfie I will come to the Original Promise in the institution of circumcision The promise is contained in these words I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Gen. 17.7 Here I say how could God be a God to Abraham and to his natural seed seeing the seed of Abraham is no better by nature then the rest of the lost sons of men seeing the seed of Abraham must needs be brought forth in Original sin how could God be a God to such a polluted seed that had equally the pollution of the whole corrupted masse The answer is plain that he did never make this promise to Abraham and to his
acknowledge but that he is the only subject of Baptisme to the excluding of Infants under the Christian education this I deny And I know no reason why we should tye up the sence of the Commission a law to continue in all ages to that particular instance of our Saviours making and baptizing Disciples in those first times Give me leave to proceed in the like manner and see whether by the rigor of some examples in appearance at least I may not be able to break the force of any generall rule Therefore let us take it as a granted maxime that a Disciple outwardly professing that every such a one is the lawfull subject of Baptisme In such a case as this is what if a man would be peevish against Disciple-baptisme might he not find out many colourable showes What if he should say that such as are able to speak with divers languages by the extraordinary gift of the Holy Ghost such only ought to be baptized Will he not have a fair plea from the example of Cornelius and his company They were not baptized till the Holy Ghost fell upon them Act. 10.44 45 46 47. Again what if he should say that a Minister at the entrance of his function that he is the only subject of Baptisme Was not our Saviour baptized at 30 years of age at the beginning of his Ministery Further what if he should affirme that they that have tasted of the spirit of bondage ought only to be baptized Did not Ananias baptize Paul after great horrors And were not the body of the people baptized by John in Jordan confessing their sinnes Last of all what if he should stand upon it that only a beleever of the heart can be baptized How plausibly may he reason from the speech of Philip to the Eunuch What doth hinder me to be Baptized If thou beleevest with all thine heart thou mayest Act. 8.36 37. So then if you take 500 Disciples of the Doctrine in ordinary experience you will scarce find 50 that have a true faith in the heart By the strictness of this Rule not only Infants but the greater part of Disciples that make outward profession must needs be excluded from Baptisme For of the greater part that make outward profession who can rationally or probably or in the judgment of Charity at least by their fruits conceive that the greater part have a true faith wrought in the heart And thus you see how Disciple baptisme which the Separation themselves allow is torne down by the precisenesse and rigour of particular examples I say then that there lyeth a truth in all the forenamed examples there lyeth a particular truth that men so and so qualified were the lawfull subjects of Baptisme but it doth not prove them to be the adequate and full subjects of Baptisme He that doth beleeve in the heart with a true faith may lawfully be baptized but we must not say that a true justifying faith is necessarily required to the administration of Baptisme So in the present case when our Saviour first made and then baptized Disciples in the first plantation of the faith there is no doubt but he did lawfully baptize such as made actuall profession But the Question is in the severall successions of the Church when Religion is once planted whether such actuall profession is necessarily required in all them that are baptized In this case I say the Apostles and their successors having the whole of the Nations to bring to the faith they must needs carry on the work by degrees by the joynt acts of teaching and baptizing In this sence teaching must needs go before baptizing when the Gospel is to be planted and baptizing before teaching after the first plantation And so both acts teach baptizing and baptize teaching are to continue together in fluxe and succession in all Christian Nations to the end of the World Therefore when our Saviour gave forth the Commission teach all Nations baptizing them we are not to think that he did look only to the time being but to the continuation of a Christian progenie and posterity upon the Earth If this be so a Discipled Nation is the lawfull subject of Baptisme and the beleeving Father in the sence of the Commission is to be baptized with his Child But seeing they that dissent from us are so willing to expound the Commission by parallel Scriptures I am content to apply my self to that method And therefore when the Prophets all along speak of the call of the Gentiles and of the bringing in of the body of the Nations I would know the time when these Prophecies did begin to be fulfilled They that dissent from us must needs say at that time when our Saviour bid his Disciples go teach all Nations baptizing them they must needs say at that particular time he did begin to put the forementioned Promises and Prophecies in execution If this be so we cannot imagine when he said teach all Nations baptizing them that his meaning was to gather a few Disciples out of all Nations by teaching and baptizing This might have been done in two or three of a Nation only without the bringing in of the body of the Nations But the words of the Commission containe a Promise a swell as a Precept for our Saviour doth promise that the body of the Nations first or last should be brought to the faith and this we find more particularly declared in the whole book of the Revelation and verified in our own experience From all that hath been said we gather that not only all Disciples so made by actuall Teaching but all Nations so far forth as they are under Discipling and Teaching and so far forth as they submit themselves to be discipled and taught they and their Children living under the Christian education are a Discipled Nation and in the sence of the Commission the lawfull subject of Baptisme Object 4. Fourthly If it be demanded what certain rule can be given to know a Discipled Nation Sol. There is nothing more easie to know then the publike profession of a Nation We may easily discerne how far forth they do acknowledge the Christ come in the flesh how far forth they look to have remission of sinne by his blood how far forth they are willing to have their Children brought up in the Faith These things are in the publike veiw of men and therefore as of old in one Nation of the Jews when the Fathers were made proselites by teaching there was a command in that dispensation to circumcise Father and Child as members of a discipled Nation So in the Church gathered out of all Nations as the Parents do now receive the Faith and do enter into Covenant to professe the Christ come in the flesh so far they and theirs must go under the account of a discipled Nation And for the evidence of this to the administrator of Baptisme they may be known to be such by the badg of their outward profession But
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
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-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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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