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
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
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
A PRECEPT FOR THE Baptisme OF INFANTS Out of the NEW TESTAMENT Where the Matter is First proved from three severall Scriptures that there is such a word of Command Secondly it is vindicated as from the exceptions of the Separation so in special from the Cavils of Mr. Robert Everard in a late Treatise of his intituled Baby-Baptisme routed By NATHANIEL STEPHENS Minister of the Gospel at Fennie-Drayton in Leicester-shire London Printed by T.R. and E.M. for Edmund Paxton Nathanaell Webb and William Grantham and are to be sold in Pauls Chaine neer Doctors Commons and at the Greyhound in Pauls Church-yard 1651. Imprimatur Edm. Calamy January 13. 1650. Christian and Conscientious Reader THough Presses in the present age are much oppressed and many fools will be medling that they may be fools in Print Yet we think this Treatise should have much wrong and so should Christian Infants if it should be concealed from publick veiw For this we hope may muzzle their mouthes who have long cryed out give us a Precept for Infant-Baptisme If such do not winke here they may see it And if their wits be not quicker to devise shifts then their consciences to receive truth here we conceive is satisfaction sufficient For Mr. Everards Pasquill no nick-name for such sheets of Satyrical invectives how can it but be nauseous to all sober minds If a truth should be so disguised it would look unlovely how much more his error Which error of his is so abundantly refuted by this sober and judicious tract which makes the way so clear for little Children to come to Christs Baptisme as they did to his armes and blessing that unlesse their adversaries blush to recant and repent as the Emperor Heraclius did when the Heresie of the Monothelites with which he was tainted was condemned they will henceforth wash those children with teares which they have craftily and cruelly kept from Baptismal washing To returne to this Book we apprehend that the substance and argumentative part of it doth sincerely and soundly hold forth the truth and that in the evidence or power of the spirit of truth If there be now and then redundance of words let it be looked upon as the Authors affection to make the matter clear to the meanest judgments And glad we are that in this reply to Baby-Baptisme routed the Reverend Author hath followed the Apostles rule 1 Pet. 3.9 and not rendred rayling for rayling We can be confident that as it savours much of the Spirit of God so it will have the more influence upon the spirits of Gods people Our own experience hath found this in our answering the challenge made us of disputation in this point four years since by Mr. Knollis and Mr. Kiffin Which challenge we received and answered may we speak it with modesty with moderation towards them from whom we received provocation enough And with what happie successe we can comfortably referre to those thousands who heard the dispute but chiefly to the happy standing fast of our own great people in this truth of Infant-Baptisme Though we confesse we daily fear the lot of other great places that seducers will creep in amongst us We have sometimes heard that our Antagonists at their returne gave thanks in their Congregations for the good successe of their long journey But if deservedly as to the point disputed we wonder then that we within a moneth sending them a copie of the disputations written by their own scribe Mr. Coppe and withall the Presse all this while keeping open doores they have not committed it to publick veiw and vote nor sent us their hands that we might do it according to Articles before the dispute What wrong they have done us and the truth by clancular and defective narratives of the businesse as we have cause to fear so we leave to their own bosomes to judge Reader let not this convenient digression tire thy patience in the perusall of this Reverend Authors work whose worth we already assure our selves will with much clearnesse appear to thee as it does to us and we doubt not will to those of his opposites who as Synesius Bishop of Cyrene his expression was had not rather lose their hearts then their conceits Now together with the book we are thine in the truth as it is in Jesus John Bryan Ministers of Coventry Obadiah Grew Ministers of Coventry The Epistle to the READER Courteous Reader BEfore I come to the discourse it self it shall not be unprofitable to shew the cause that first moved me to enterprise this businesse and the severall steps by which I have been carried on For the cause alas is too manifest many people among us and some of good hope have been drawen aside to follow the way of the separation Things standing thus I could not but as a private Christian by the band of love but more especially as a Minister of the word by relation of office I could not I say but rise and look after such neighbours and friends of mine who in my aprehension at least were as sheeep gone astray Therefore about the end of January last I took occasion to go to Earles-Shilton a neighbouring town in Leicester-shire where the Masters of Division have played their principall game My purpose was by conference with them to know the reasons of their departure from us When a competent number of that way were gathered together some pleaded errors in our Doctrine others corruptions in our Ministery and a third sort faulted our Churches constitution But in conclusion of that days discourse I found that the point which they did bind very much upon was this That there word was no word of command for the Baptisme of Infants in the New Testament I found that this principally moved them to renounce the old and to take up a new Baptisme to leave the old and to joyn themselves to a new Church Hereupon I told them that however others look to the ancient use of the Church in the Baptisme of Infants I was perswaded that there was a word of institution and had I time more fully to study the point I hoped I should make it appear They desired me to take time and our agreement was that before my next coming I should give them a weeks warning which I did accordingly and appointed the 27th of March for the particular day of our conference I desired that some of their more solid and principal men would be there for the tryal of truth and this I signified by letter a week before But when I came I did not find the men I looked for Whether they were absent on set purpose or whether there was a real cause of their absence I cannot tell Therefore I did publickly according to that light I had Preach a Precept for the Baptisme of Infants before the People and when I had done I did leave one brief Argument behind me in writing for the freinds of the separation to consider of Since that time I
acknowledge that I have received two answers the one upon the first of May and the other upon the fifth of September And I could wish that the last Answerer which was one Mr. Robert Everard had not been so hastie to put his Answer in Print but rather that he and I had gone on in the way we were in to try the matter by writing each to other Sure I am by this friendly and private way of enquiry he and I might have gained very much at least the one might have come forth more ripe for the publick veiw What his secret reasons were I know not His way of life being itinerary from place to place it is a question whether such a narrow and set disquisition of truth would not have fixed him too long to one place Or whether according to the title of his book he did inwardly beleeve that he had given a totall rout to the Baptisme of Infants Or whether it were to ease his own shoulders of the burden and to call in more of the party to his assistance For my own part I beleeve the matter being now brought into Print I am not now to deal with this or that particular man but with the whole nation of them that are against a Precept for the Baptisme of Infants And this I take to be no small number For I beleeve the piety of former times as they then called it was not greater to set up high altars then it is now to divide into new Churches And therefore to a man who maketh it one of his cheif designes to set up a new Church to erect a new Ministery and to cast all into a new mould what better principle can he have to begin withall then a new Baptisme I do expect therefore when I go about to shew a Command for the Baptisme of Infants that I shall not want exceptions against me both from principles of conscience and from principles of interest However I am resolved being cast upon it to put the matter now by the Lords assistance unto publick triall One member of the disjunctive must needs be true either there is a Precept for the Baptisme of Infants or there is not For my part I beleeve there is and therefore I shall be the more willing to shew the grounds on which I build If any one be of opinion that the world is too full of books in this kinde and that little more can be said then hath been already I would intreat such a one to look upon the doubts that are in the Consciences of godly men every where and to consider the present necessities and divisions of the Church And I beleeve when he hath done so he will have small reason to complain of too much water seeing all is on fire For that speech of the wise man The thing that hath been it is that which shall be and there is no new thing under the Sunne Eccles 1.8 I acknowledge that there is a truth in it yet not as it is too ordinarily applyed For I can avouch by experience and I speak the words of truth and sobernesse that in many hidden Prophesies and in some subtill controversies when I have read all on both sides the truth hath not so clearly appeared unto me as when I came to canvasse the Scriptures to dive into the sense of them by meditation and to compare Scripture with Scripture This hath some way happened in the present controversie It may be then that which hath been to mine own may by the blessing of God be satisfactory to the conscience of another man Reader thou hast now the reasons that moved me to this work Thus desiring the help of thy prayers that the thing I labour in may tend both to the clearing of the truth and as much as may be in these times of division to the preserving of the peace of the Church I rest Thine in the Lord NATHANIEL STEPHENS Fennie Drayton Novemb. 19. 1650. The Generall heads contained in this Treatise HOw the Precept is proved from the words of the Commission Matth. 28.19 Teach all Nations baptizing them How the Children are comprehended under the word them pag. 1. How the Precept is proved from Acts 2.38 39. For the Promise is to you and to your Children Whether the Argument be of force the word of Promise is to Beleevers and their Children therefore the word of Command is to baptize Father and Child pag. 13 How the Precept is proved from John 3.5 Except a man be born of Water and of the Spirit c. Where it is shewed how far forth it is necessary for the Children of Beleevers which are borne in Originall sinne to receive Baptisme the seal of Regeneration pag 18 What the particular Argument was which the Author gave to the partie of the separation to prove a Precept for the Baptisme of Children pag. 28 What their first answer was to the argument ibid. How it was renewed again in both the parts and in the whole sense because the children of Beleevers have a right to Baptisme by the word of Promise they must have a right by the word of Command ibid. How it was particularly renewed in the first part by shewing the convertibility between the word of Promise and the word of Command in the Sacramental action pag. 29 How it was renewed in the second part by shewing that the Promise to Beleevers and their Children is not meant of extraordinary gifts but of the Covenant of grace pag. 30 What their second answer was to the argument forealledged pag. 31 How the argument is vindicated from the exceptions of Mr. Everard the Author of the last answer pag. 33 How it is shewed to be truly grounded upon the words of the Text. pag. 35 How it is evidenced to be right in the frame of it pag. 58 How the Children may be said to professe in their Parents that do undertake for them And therefore there is no danger of tearing the words be baptized every one of you Father and Child from the words Repent and be baptized pag. 36 How Mr. Everard by denyall of Infant-Baptisme doth tear the word of Promise from the word of Command pag. 43 Whether Peters hearers were true Beleevers when he exhorted them be baptized every one of you and so consequently whether their Children were capable of the Seal pag. 46 Of the maine Objection of Mr. Everard viz. Then the whole nation of the Jewes ought to be baptized because the Promise was made unto them and to their Children pag. 47 What the answer to this Objection is by shewing that not a right to the Promise in generall but a right that Beleevers and their Children have to the Promise in the last exhibition doth bring a right to baptisme ibid. What are the three exhibitions of the Promise and how in each exhibition the Promise doth still hold to Father and Child pag. 48 The question is resolved in speciall that a true Beleever of the heart
that may be saved in his own dispensation cannot be capable of another Seal till be hath received the Promise in that particular exhibition to which the Seal is annexed pag. 50 The Appendix of Mr. Swayne in which he showeth that the Brethren of the Separation have neither precept nor example for their Baptisme for want of a true Administrator pag. 63 A PRECEPT for the Baptisme of Infants out of the New Testament THat this matter may be the more clearly understood I will first alledge those particular places of Scripture from whence the Precept is proved Secondly I will vindicate the argument which I gave to prove a Precept from the exceptions of the Brethren of the Separation and especially from the late Treatise of Master Everard For the places of Scripture there are three texts in the New Testament which as farre as I apprehend being rightly expounded and cleared will prove a Precept The first is Matth. 28.19 where our Saviour speaketh to his Apostles Go teach all Nations baptizing them c. He would have them now go to al Nations that were formerly outcasts of the Covenant and strangers from the Common-wealth of Israel Epbes 2. verse 11 17. He would have them go teach disciple and covenant all Nations in the Faith and when the Nations shall come to be discipled taught covenanted and brought so farre to own the faith of Christ come in the flesh then the commission is baptize the discipled Nations to wit the beleeving parents and the children so farre forth at least as they live under that education and tuition Now contrarily whereas many late Writers will have a Disciple able to make actuall profession in his own person the only subject of Baptisme They are to my understanding greatly deceived in this point For if the words of the text be literally truly and grammatically read not Nations onely nor Disciples onely but discipled Nations are the subject of Baptisme When our Saviour saith Teach all Nations baptizing them who are they that he doth mean by the word them doth he not mean the Nations the beleeving Nations the parents and their children If it had been his minde that his Apostles should baptize such onely as did actually beleeve and professe in their own persons and none of their children what could have been more easily said then this Go make Disciples out of all Nations and such persons that ye have made Disciples baptize them onely If this had been his meaning he could easily have exprest himself that persons so and so qualified are the onely subjects of Baptisme But seeing he saith Go teach all Nations baptizing them he doth look here to a progeny and to a posterity of beleevers he doth here look to the Nations so farre forth as they consist of beleeving parents and children under their education Seeing in the affirmative a discipled Nation is the subject of Baptisme in the negative a Nation not discipled is excluded from Baptisme Now if any man shall say where have you in the New Testament a Precept for the baptism of infants I will say In the words of the Commission If he shall reply that there is no mention made of children in that text My answer is though they be not expressed in so many letters and syllables yet they are contained in the word them When our Saviour saith Teach all nations baptizing them his meaning is to baptize them parents that professe in their own persons and their children so farre forth as they live under their Christian education Both together make a discipled Nation and both joyntly are the subject of Baptisme by the word of the Commission But that the children are contained in the word them Go teach all Nations baptizing them I prove thus First laying down the most remarkable circumstances of the commision Secondly by compating it with other places of the New Testament that have a near relation to it Thirdly by showing the absurdities that will follow in case the infants are not included where the Nation doth professe For the circumstances there are three remarkable and speciall ones that show the children to be contained in the word of Institution First when our Saviour saith Go teach all Nations there all Nations are set in immediate opposition to one Nation all Nations in Covenant to the particular Nation of the Jewes in Covenant And therefore as the particular Nation of the Jews had the Covenant and the Seale to admit them and their Infants into the Church in the time of their own dispensation So it is the minde of Christ in that sence of the Commission that when the Nations receive the faith they should have the Covenant and the Seale for themselves and their children in the time of the new dispensation If this be so that the opposition is between Nation and Nation all Nations and that particular Nation we may build upon it that in these words go teach all Nations Baptizing them the children are comprised in the word Nations but more particularly in the word them and are in the sence of the Commission together with their parents the proper subjects of Baptisme If this be not so what will become of the opposition betwixt all Nations in Covenant and that one Nation Secondly by the time when the Commission was given It was at that instant when circumcision ceased to be the Seale of admission into the Jewish Church after it had stood for two thousand yeers together At that very instant the Lord did appoint Baptisme as an initial Seal to come in the place of Circumcision to performe the same office in the Churches of the Gentiles as Circumcision did before in the particular Church of the Jewes So then if Circumcision as all do know was the door to let in Father and Child into the Jewish Church in all the time of that administration we can judge no other but that it was the minde of Christ in his Commission that his Apostles should teach all Nations and such of them as should receive the faith they should by Baptisme be let into the Church beleeving Parents and their Children after that manner as they were admitted in all the time of the administration going before Thirdly when our Saviour gave Commission to his Disciples Go teach all Nations the doctrine that he would have them teach was no other but the doctrine of the Gospel delivered unto Abraham in the nature of a Covenant The Scripture fore-seeing that God would justifie the Heathen through faith preached before the Gospel to Abraham saying in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed Gal. 3.8 being compared with Acts 3.24 25. Rom. 4.11 Ephes 2.11 12 13. If therfore it was the minde of Christ that through the Apostles preaching the blessing of the particular families of Abraham should be conveighed to all the beleeving families of the earth what can be more rational to conceive according to the Commission but that the Promise and the Seale
are to be applyed to the beleeving families of the earth to Father and Child as it was formerly to the particular family of Abraham The blessing must needs go from family to family from the particular family of Abraham in the times of Circumcision to all the beleeving families of the earth in the times of Baptisme So then the chief circumstances of the Commission being laid together First all Nations in Covenant standing in immediate opposition to one Nation of the Jewes Secondly the circumstance of time that Baptisme did precisely begin at that instant to be the Seale of admission into the Church gathered out of all Nations when Circumcision ceased Thirdly the substance of the doctrine by preaching the Gospel the Apostles were to bring the blessing of the particular family of Abraham into all the beleeving families of the earth All these circumstances laid together plainly prove that Baptisme is to be applyed to the Church gathered out of all Nations after the same manner respecting beleeving parents and their children as Circumcision was applyed to the particular Nation of the Jewes And therefore when our Saviour saith Go teach all Nations baptizing them c. we can conceive no other from the circumstances of the Commission but that by positive right and by the appointed will the children in a beleeving Nation together with their parents are comprehended in the word Them as the true and proper subject of Baptisme So then we have a word of command cleared from the Commission from the scope of the text and the principal circumstances do agree Let us now go to parallel-Scriptures Secondly if we compare parallel Scriptures in the New Testament we shall finde by comparing Scripture with Scripture that the children must needs be comprised in the word of the Commission For the particular Scriptures because they are so largely handled by the late Writers Mr. Cotion Mr. Marshal Mr. Blake and as I hear by some others lately come forth I shall spare my paines and referre the judicious Reader to their learned Treatises Only to the purpose in hand I desire to lay down this as a sure rule that from whatsoever text in the New Testament the Baptisme of Infants may be proved whether it be proved directly or indirectly mediately or immediately severally by one place or joyntly by comparing many places together which was soever it be proved the matter will come to this that if the children have a right they must be contained in the general command And therefore when our Saviour saith teach all Nations baptizing them we must needs suppose that he speaketh comprehensively that in the word them he doth include every person that hath a right to the Seale under the new dispensation And therefore if in any of the aforenamed Authors any one text will hold good for the Baptisme of Infants we may argue that Infants are contained in the head precept Let us come to give two or three instances The Apostle in that famous place speaking of the children of beleevers doth use these words The unbeleeving husband is sanctified by the wife and the unbeleeving wife is sanctified by the husband else were your children uncleane but now are they holy 1 Cor 7.14 Here the Apostle speaketh of the natural children of beleevers that they are holy I demand then in what sence doth he say they are holy It is agreed upon on all sides that it is not meant of inward holinesse because the children are said to be holy as being propagated from beleeving parents Therefore it must be one of these two wayes either by Covenant holinesse as we affirm or by legitimation of issue as the followers of the Separation But I say the text cannot possibly be understood in the latter sence for then why may not the children of Turks and Tartars be said to be holy seeing many of them are borne in lawfull wedlock Secondly if any text of Scripture may be found out where the children may be said to be holy because lawfully borne yet how can such a sence agree to the present text Here only is mention made of beleeving and unbeleeving parents of a clean or unclean issue as the parent is either beleeving or unbeleeving Upon these considerations when the Apostle saith that the children are holy this must needs be meant of federal and covenant holinesse He speaketh of the time Now are the children holy to wit in the last exhibition of the promise And therefore in the sence of the Commission when our Saviour saith teach all Nations baptizing them his command was to baptize the Corinthians children so farre forth as the parents did beleeve through grace In this sence because the parents did beleeve the progeny was holy as a part of a discipled Nation and according to the meaning of the Commission a lawfull subject of Baptisme The Corinthians children being federally holy must needs be contained in the word them teach all Nations baptizing them c. Secondly from the maine scope of Rom. 11. it is plaine that the Gentiles have now the same graffing into the Olive tree that the Jewes had before and that the present graffing in of the Gentile is answerable to the casting out of the Jew So then if when the Jew was graffed in he was graffed in and his children it will follow the Gentile being ingraffed in his place he must needs be graffed in and his children Again when the Jew was cast out he was cast out and his children and therefore when the Gentile was received in his roome be must be received and his children If this be not so where will be the analogie between the breaking off of one linage and the implantation of another the breaking off of some branches and the ingraffing in of others If the beleeving Gentile did not come in with his children in the place of the Jew cast out what shall we make of the whole sence of the chapter what shall become of the opposition between Nation and Nation To whom may the Apostle be said to direct his speech when he speaketh Thou art cut out of the Olive tree wild by nature Thou bearest not the root but the root thee He that spared not the naturall brunches take heed that he spare not thee Behold the severity of God but on thee goodnesse ver 17 18 19 20 21 22 24. Now who is this thou and thee to whom he doth so frequently speak It can be no other but the beleeving Gentile and his children opposed to the Jew cast out of covenant and his children If you apply this to the Commission Go teach all Nations baptizing them what can be more naturall to affirme then that the children with their beleeving parents make up a discipled nation and that both together are the lawfull subjects of baptisme In Rom. 11. the beleeving parents with their children are contained in the words them and thee and they are also comprised in the word them in the commission Go
This is the meaning of the text that the promise doth belong to the children of Beleevers whether Jewes or Gentiles whether in the second or in the third dispensation the promise doth belong to the children when the parents come to embrace the faith On this ground doth the Apostle urge the word of command to father and child be baptized every one of you and this I take to be the true meaning of the text Quest So you say but what sufficient reason can you bring to assure the conscience Answ That which doth much assure me is the Apostles own interpretation in the chapter following for there he showeth that the blessing in the particular family of Abraham shall be applyed to all the beleeving families kindreds and nations of the earth Acts 3.25 26. with Gal. 3.8 Gen. 12.3 Now what is this but that the promise shall be one and the same to them that beleeve among the Gentiles and their families as to them that did beleeve among the Jewes and their families He doth not speak onely of Beleevers in person but of Beleevers and their children why else doth he say concerning Christ the promised seed all the families shall be blessed in him Why else doth he use this expression But that the promise now in the last times is still one and the same to Beleevers and their families On this ground doth he build the word of command to the parents that did beleeve and to their children Be baptized every one of you Quest If this be the meaning of the command why is there no more frequent mention of the Baptisme of children in the New Testament Answ Because the Apostles after the giving forth of the commission had principally to deal with the Jewes to bring them out of Judaisme and with the Gentiles to bring them out of Gentilisme their work did lye especially in this For this cause we read more often of the Baptisme of such that did beleeve and professe in their own person Yet neverthelesse we find it again and again repeated in the story of the N. Testament that such and such a one beleeveth and was baptized he and his house So farre therefore as I can discern the ordinary baptizing of housholds in those dayes is a plain example to illustrate the word of command in the Apostles words to baptize beleevers and their children Quest For the baptisme of housholds though we do read this again and again repeated yet we are to understand it of such only that did make outward profession Answ True The Apostles did baptize such as did professe in their own persons yet they did baptize the housholds in relation to the fathers engagement For the proof of this I do offer these ensuing reasons First it was the general practise of the Church going before when the father did beleeve and professe he was received with his houshold Exod. 12.48 Therefore when the Apostles did baptize in the new Administration we can conceive no other but they did follow the common use in receiving the father that did beleeve with his children Secondly when they did preach the Gospel they did bring the blessing of Abraham into the beleeving families of the earth If they did this they must needs in the last dispensation apply the promise and the seale generally to all beleeving families of the earth in the same manner as formerly it was applyed to the particular family of Abraham Now what is this but to take in the professing parent with his children Thirdly in those times those that were brought out of Judaisme or Paganisme did at the time of their entrance into the Church make a solemne league and covenant with God to professe the faith they and their families Acts 16.14 1 Cor. 1.12 13 14. Ephes 6.4 Therefore when the Apostles did baptize the housholds of beleevers we cannot conceive that they did this only in relation to some persons that made actual profession but in relation to the fathers ingagement that did undertake for himself and for his children Fourthly they that say the Apostles did baptize the housholds and such in the housholds only as did actually beleeve and professe they that say this let them show a reason why the houshold of Lydia was baptized for we read only of her that the Lord opened her heart to beleeve the Christ If you will say that her family was baptized in relation to her undertaking then the reason will lye cleare in the text Lydia was judged faithful to the Lord and so was baptized she and her houshold Acts. 16.14 All these reasons put together plainly demonstrate the Apostolical practise to baptize beleevers housholds in relation to their undertaking for themselves and for their children If this be so there must needs be an example to answer the Apostolical precept Be baptized every one of you Father and Child for the Promise is to you and to your children And so from the words of Peter compared with the practise of other Apostles we have both a precept and an example for the Baptisme of Children in the New-Testament and as I think our task is done I come now to the third Scripture to prove the necessity of Infant-baptisme Thirdly In the conference with Nicodemus our Saviour doth insist much upon the pollution of the Naturall birth and the necessity of Regeneration both by Water without and the Spirit within Now in this Scripture there is included a Precept to Beleevers to apply the outward washing to their Children born in Originall sinne the Seal of the inward washing That this may bee made manifest I will First clear the Text from two ordinary mistakes Secondly from the words rightly expounded I will show how the precept is deduced by necessary consequence For the mistaks in the first place they do over shoot themselves that plead from hence an absolute necessitie of the Baptisme of infants Indeed there is an absolute necessitie that all that are borne in Originall sinne if they be saved they must be saved by the Covenant but there is not a like necessitie of the Seal In the times of the first dispensation to comfort Beleevers in respect of their Children born in Originall sinne the promise then was The seed of the woman shall break the Serpents head Gen. 3.15 Yet there was no Seal of this Promise no initiall Seal for two thousand years together from Adam to Abraham Further there was not such absolute necessity of the Seal in the times of Circumcision for those that died before the eight day There was then as now is an absolute necessity of Salvation by the Promise and the Covenant but the necessity of the Seal was only conditionall so far forth as it might be well had Therefore when the ancient Writers Fathers and Schoolmen speak so much of the necessity of Baptisme and of the Salvation of Infants strictly and precisely upon terms of Baptisme to my understanding they ascribe too much to the outward Ordinance and so
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
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