sin and born in iniquity he did pray to the Lord that he would create in him a clean heart and renew within him a right Spirit Psal 51.5 10. In this he did but pray for the inward circumcision of the heart according to the word of Promise to which he had already obliged and bound himself to look after in the time of his outward circumcision The like reason may be given of the times of the New-Testament where the Lord doth command us to be renewed in the spirit of our mindes to wash to clense our selves from all pollution of flesh and spirit In this case we are not to take it as though we had an inward power to wash or clense our mindes but we are to consider when the Lord doth lay such a Command upon us it is in correspondence and relation to the Promise sealed in the Sacrament of Baptisme Because he hath promised to give his Spirit inwardly to wash and clense our Natures when we receive the outward washing we for our parts do oblige and bind our selves inwardly to wash by and through the supply of his holy Spirit Therefore to shut up all though Baptisme doth not confer Regeneration yet by that Ordinance the Lord doth bind himself to give his Spirit toward that inward Regeneration so far forth as we do and shall endeavour to look after his Promise And thus far I have gone in clearing the Text from two great mistakes I do not plead from the words except ye be born of Water and of the Spirit an absolute necessity of Baptisme by the outward Element of Water but only a conditionall I do not plead that all who are outwardly baptized are inwardly Regenerated But that the Lord doth enter into Covenant with them to give his regenerating Spirit so far forth as they look and wait for it in the use of those means which he hath appointed This is all that I do desire to speak concerning this matter and I do it the rather because I would not give offence I hope then that I shall be more willingly heard when I prove a precept both for the Baptisme of Infants and for the necessity of their Baptisme from this Scripture The probation of the Precept doth lye in two particulars First by Water is meant the outward water in Baptisme as it doth referre to the inward washing of the Spirit Secondly because children are born in Originall sinne there doth lye a necessity upon the Parents to bring them to Baptisme the Seal of their Regeneration That the outward Baptisme of Water is here meant the reasons that move me so to judge are these First the generall consent of all antiquity together with many late Writers agree in it that the externall elementarie Baptisme is here intended as a Seal of the inward washing Secondly it is more immediate to the words of the Text to take the washing of water as the outward signe and the washing of the Spirit as the inward grace Thirdly other places of Scripture do carrie but one and the same sence The washing of Baptisme is called the washing of Regeneration Tit. 3.5 And the reason is this because the inward washing of the Spirit in Regeneration is sealed with the outward washing in Baptisme Now is this all one with the birth by Water and by the Spirit But if any man shall stand in it that these and many other Scriptures cannot be meant of water-Baptisme then I would intreat him to show me the reason why the work of Regeneration in the New Testament is so often called by the title and by the name of washing There is a purging by fire so mettalls are refined Mal. 3.3 There is a purging by wind so the corn is clensed Math. 3.12 Why then is the clensing and purging and the inward renewing of the heart so frequently set forth by the washing of water I think all will easily agree in it because the outward washing is appointed as a Seal of the inward washing of the new birth If this be so the birth by water must needs refer to the water of Baptisme as to the outward signe Fourtly that which hath moved some late Writers to depart from this interpretation for the reason that hath moved them we can clearly make it appear that other Scriptures have the like show of dfficultie of which no question is to be made but they speak of outward Baptisme If some of them apprehend that the present text Except a man be borne of water and of the spirit cannot be meant of outward baptisme because then the baptisme of water would be absolutely necessary to salvation He that is troubled with this difficulty let him consider that place He that beleeveth and is baptized shall be saved Mark 16.16 In these words no man doubteth but the Lord Christ doth point to the outward baptisme by water and in a sort he doth say that this baptisme is necessary to salvation How then are the words to be expounded We must take them in this sence that faith is more absolutely necessary to salvation yet in a sort it is true that baptisme is necessary as the outward meane Why else should our Saviour say He that beleeveth and is baptized shall be saved We may in the present case give the same exposition According to the manifest course of divine dispensation we come to salvation by the new birth and in the ordinary way so farre as it may conveniently be had the outward washing is a seale of the inward washing of the Spirit These and many more reasons might be brought to prove that the outward Baptisme is intended in the words Except a man be borne of water and of the Spirit But in so plaine a case these shall suffice Now we come to prove the Precept First If it be granted that the outward elementary baptisme is here intended I think it will easily follow in the conscience of every beleeving parent that there is a necessity lyeth upon him to bring his child to baptisme For if the Lord Christ that giveth salvation doth require the outward baptisme of Water and the inward baptisme of the Spirit both these as the ordinary meane to salvation in such a case for a parent that is mindful of the salvation of his infant it is not for him curiously to dispute whether an Infant unbaptized may be saved But it lyeth upon him to do that which is required and so to avoid the danger But let us more particularly insist upon the Baptisme of Infants the word of command must necessarily be applyed because of the pollution of their natural birth The scope of the text is chiefly concerning these three particulars First that all by nature are defiled with Original sin Secondly there is a necessity of the new birth Thirdly the outward washing in baptisme is a seale of the inward washing This being laid as a ground that the Infant is borne in Original sin and that the outward baptisme is a seale of
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
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
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
teach all Nations baptizing them c. I might bring more places to prove that the children together with their parents doe make a beleeving nation And for such also that shall say that the children cannot be members in the Gospel Church-state I might alledg the ensample of the Jewes at their call in the last times For according to the prophecies it is cleare as they have been cast out and their children so at their call they shall be received and their children in a glorious manner But these few instances may serve to parallel the Commission and to shew that the children are maintained in the word them teach all Nations baptizing them Now I come to instance the absurdities in case the Children be excluded Thirdly If beleevers children be not contained in the word them teach all Nations baptizing them these absurdities will ensue First whereas in the two former dispensations father and child entered into the Church together in this last best and most large edition of the Covenant the parents shall be taken in and the children shut ouâ— Secondly If the children be not contained in the word them teach all Nations baptizing them there will be a change in the extent of the Covenant as to the particular of infants and in respect of the subject the Lord Christ will varie from the usuall way of administring the seal and yet give no warning of so great a change Thirdly If the Children be not contained in the word them teach all Nations baptizing them what difference will there be between the children of such that professe the Christ come in the flesh and the Christians of Turks his absolute enemies For if we take it as granted that the children in the last dispensation have no right to Church priviledges nor to the seale let any shew the difference between the children of beleevers and the Children of out-casts of the Covenant If they differ not in inward graces nor in outward Priveledges in what then do they differ Fourthly If the children be not contained in the word them teach all Nations baptizing them what shall we say in speciall by those of the Jewish Nation that were brought to the faith by the preaching of the Apostles will it not necessarily follow that such as did beleeve and receive the Christ come in the flesh by their beleeving the promise in the last exhibition bring losse to their Children Will it not necessarily follow that the Children formerly Church members shall come to be spoyled of Church membership the Children formerly Sealed shall come to be devested of the Seal the Children formerly in the Covenant shall come to be expunged out of the Covenant And all these dammages will follow upon the Jew his beleeving the Christ come in the flesh Fifthly If the Children be not contained in the word them teach all Nations baptizing them what will become of the comfort of Beleevers in this last dispensation There is no true Beleever in these times but he doth look upon his Children as borne in Originall sin where is then His comfort His comfort is in the Covenant But what if the Children must not be baptized What if they have no right to the Seal of the Covenant Can he presume that they have a right to the Covenant it self and to Salvation by vertue of the Covenant Where there is no title to the Seal especially in such a dispensation where a Seal is annexed to the Covenant what title is there to the Covenant it self Sixthly If the Children be not contained in the word them teach all Nations baptizing them there will be a change in the heart of Christ by his last words he will exclude them from the Seal and Church-membership of whom he said in his former exhortations Suffer little Children to come to me and forbid them not for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven Matth. 19.14 These and many other absurdities may be alledged in case Infants be excluded from Baptisme Now then if this be so what will become of those ordinary speeches of the adverse partie We want a precept we have no word of Command from Christ c. To them I may reply that they make their case worse then it is they have a word of institution to baptize Parents and Children When our Saviour saith Teach all Nations baptizing them the Children living under the Christian education are inclusively contained in the word Them We have proved this First from the remarkable circumstances of the Text Secondly by comparing the Commission with other Scriptures Thirdly by shewing the absurdities in case the Children are not contained collectively with their Parents in the Word Them Teach all Nations baptizing them Now I proceed to answer some Objections Object 1. If they say that the Word ethne Nations being a newter cannot be substantive to autous Them a word of the Masculine gender Sol. They that shall so reason let them peruse the Originall in the Old and New Testament and they shall every where find this Enallage or change of Gender To let passe all that might be brought let them consider that one Scripture concerning the loosing of Satan to seduce the Nations And he shall go forth to deceive ethne the Nations that are in the four quarters of the Earth God and Magog to gather autous them together to battell And they went up in the bredth of the Earth and compassed the Camp of the Saints and the beloved City and fire came down from God out of Heaven and devoured autous them And the Devill that deceived autous them was cast into the lake of fire c. Rev. 20 vers 8.9 10. Now here it is plain that the word autous them is three times together set in relation to the word ethne nations From whence I gather in the sence of the Commission that the word autous them must by the like reason necessarily answer to the word ethne nations and this is the naturall construction of the words Object 2. Secondly If they shall object that then the Nations as Nations will be the lawfull subject of Baptisme Sol. Not so neither It will necessarily follow that the Nations as discipled as taught as beleeving as professing Nations in this sence will be the proper subjects of Baptisme All Nations as Nations since the breaking down of the partition wall have a generall interest in preaching the Gospel Mark 16.16 compared with Matth. 10. vers 5.6 but this generall interest doth not intitle to Baptisme All Nations have a right to the Gospel preached as Nations but they have a right only to Baptisme Parents and Children so farre forth as they are under discipling and teaching and do yeeld to discipling and teaching Object 3. Thirdly if they alledge that the Commission is to be expounded by that place Joh. 4.2 Jesus made and baptized more Disciples therefore a Disciple actually made is the only subject of Baptisme Sol. That such a one is the lawfull subject of Baptisme I do willingly
and answer And therefore to begin with the first question The Question is who are the Persons to be baptized when the Apostle saith be baptized everyone of you Answ The Persons to be baptized are Beleevers and their Children Question How prove you that Beleevers Children are to be baptized Answ Beleevers Children are to be baptized because the promise is to you and your children these words immediately follow the word of Command and are added as a reason of the Command Quest How will that appear Answ It will appear in the coherence of the Apostles speech and particularly in the word For which doth joyn the parts of the Text together He exhorteth them be baptized every one of you and giveth this reason For the promise is to you and your children Therefore the promise is here repeated as the ground of the command Quest So you plead indeed for the Baptisme of children by the word of command but how do you prove the word of command Answ I prove it thus seeing there is such a near relation between the word of promise and the word of command in the Sacrament of Baptisme we may safely conclude that if the children of Beleevers have a right to be Baptized by the word of promise in the last exhibition they have a right to Baptisme by the word of Command If they have a right to be baptized by the one part they must have a right to Baptisme by the Counterpane or the other part of the word of institution In this matter we build the word of command upon the word of promise Quest Yea but the great doubt lyeth in this what the Apostle meaneth when he saith for the promise is to you and your children Answ There is no question to be made but he meaneth the grand promise of Christ as may appear by his words in the chapter following ye are the children of the Prophets and of the Covenant which God made with Abraham saying in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed Vnto you first hath God raised up his Son Jesus and hath sent him to blesse you in turning every one of you from his iniquities Acts 3.24 25. Therefore when the Apostle saith For the promise is to you and your children he meaneth to the promise of Christ made to Abraham Quest Admit this be granted what do you gather from thence Answ I gather this as that promise made to Abraham and his seed was the ground formerly on which the Lord did build the command to circumcise father and child in all the time of that administration So the Apostle doth speak to these Jewes who had crucified Christ that if they would receive him as the particular Messiah the same promise should still continue to them and their children in the new dispensation And on this doth he build the word of command to baptize father child Quest But you do here argue from infant-Circumcision unto infant-Baptisme by this way of reasoning why do you not plead the Baptisme of the males only Why do you not plead for the particular eight day and so carry the wholy analogy together Answ I do not argue from the bare analogy of Circumcision but herein lyeth the force of my reason because the promise is one and the same in the last exhibition to beleevers and their children as it was in the times of Circumcision the same word of promise exhibited in the last times doth draw in the word of command to baptize father and child And this I stand upon is the sence of Peter in the words of the Text. For the particular of the Males the eight day and such like circumstances it doth not hold in these as in that one particular of infancie These as all know are of a perishing nature but for the particular of infancy because the promise to beleevers their children doth hold from age to age from beleevers of the Jewes to beleevers of the Gentiles from beleevers in the time of the Circumcision to beleevers in the times of Baptisme Because the promise doth still hold one and the same in substance to beleevers and their children in the last dispensation Upon this ground doth the Apostle build the word of command be baptized every one of you c. Therefore the word of promise to the children now in the last exhibition doth bring in the word of command to baptize infants or to baptize in infancie Quest Well let it be admitted that the promise is to beleevers and their children now in the last dispensation it maketh not to the purpose for the Apostle saith To as many as the Lordour God shall call therefore the promise shall belong to them and to their children at the time of the call only Answ I yeeld that they that live in Gentilisme or Judaisme must be called before the promise and the Seale may he rightly applyed to them but the question is when they are once called when they once receive the Christ come in the flesh is not the promise to them and their children in the last as well as in the two former exhibitions I do affirme that the promise in the last exhibition doth appertain to beleevers and their children as long as they are no worse then such before the time of their call For First the natural seed of beleevers were called children of the Covenant in all the time of the former dispensation and that before calling Acts 3.24 25. How then can the promise in the times of the Gospel appertaine to the children only at the time of their call Secondly how can the Apostle avouch that the same promise to beleevers and their children that the same promise in substance as to the children doth descend out of the times of Circumcision into the times of Baptisme if the promise as to the children in the times of Baptisme shall be limited and circumscribed to the time of the call onely Thirdly what encouragement is this to them he spake to that they should leave the Old to come under the New Administration This were no encouragement if the promise to the children under the New Administration should belong to them at the time of the call only Fourthly what peculiar priviledge doth he promise to the children of Beleevers more then to the children of Pagans sith the promise shall be to the children of Pagans at the time of their calling The promise as to the children of Beleevers by this account will be just nothing at all Fifthly when he saith as many as the Lord our God shall call this doth relate to the words going before to them that are afarre off to wit to the Gentiles Ephes 2.11 12 13. When it shall please the Lord our God to call them to wit the Gentiles out of paganisme the promise as exhibited in the last times shall be to them and their children as formerly it was to beleevers amongst the Jewes to them and their children in their own dispensation
the Children of Beleevers have a right to be baptized by the word of Command And so consequently there is a word of Command in the New Testament to baptize Beleevers and their Children The connexion is proved from the convertibility and mutuall relation between the word of Promise and the word of Command and therefore if the Children of Beleevers have a right to be baptized by the one they must have a right to be baptized by the other The consequence is clear and for the assumption it is proved by St. Peters own words For the Promise is to you and your children This is my argument To this on the first of May I received a certain Paper by way of answer the substance of which was briefly this For the convertibility of the word of Promise and the word of Command they said I took it as granted I had affirmed it only but had not proved it therefore there was no such mutuall relation And for the assumption they said that the Children of Beleevers have no right to be baptized by the word of Promise seeing that the Promise is meant only of extraordinary gifts vers 16 17. Seeing that Infants in these our dayes are not capable of such gifts they knew no right they had to be baptized by vertue of that Promise This was the substance of the Paper which they sent to me on the first of May. And my returne to them on the third of June was briefly this Whereas they did deny the convertibility between the word of Promise and the word of Command I did endeavour to prove it by these reasons that follow First from particular examples in the Sacrament of Circumcision the word of Promise is I will be thy God and the God of thy seed in relation to this Promise the Lord did command Abraham to circumcise all his Males Gen. 17.7 8 9. In this institution there is a mutuall relation and convertibility between the word of Promise and the word of Command For as many as had a right to be circumcised by the word of Promise had a right to be circumcised by the word of Command Again as many as had a right to be circumcised by the word of Command had a right to be circumcised by the word of Promise there must needs be then a convertibility between these two in the Sacramentall action Again in the Institution of the Passover the Lord was pleased to make a gaacious promise to the children of Israel When I see the blood I will passe over you and the plague shall not be upon you when I smite the land of Egypt Exod. 12.13 In relation to this Promise the Lotd commanded them to take the blood and to strike it upon the two side-posts and upon the upper door-posts of the houses where they should eat the Lamb. This was a Type of Christ where his blood is there will be deliverance from wrath Now in this as in the former institution there is a Convertibility between the word of Promise and the word of Command For as many as had a word of Promise to escape the plaguing Angel had a word of command to strike the blood upon the door-posts And as many as had a word of Command to strick the blood upon the door-posts so many had a word of Promise to escape the plaguing Angel The convertibility between these two might be further proved from such Promises which it hath pleased the Lord to signifie to the sons of men by outward signes and figures But these are sufficient Secondly This is made manifest by the generall nature of Covenants between men and men There must needs be a convertibility between these two parts that do contract as may appear by the Indentures between them If this be so in the general nature of Covenants it must necessarily hold in the Sacramental Covenant betwixt God and man There must needs be between the word of Promise which is Gods part and the word of Command that doth contain the duty of man in the Sacramentall action there must needs be I say between these two a near relation Thirdly this is evident from the very definition of a Sacrament For the form and being of a Sacrament by and through which it is defined doth stand in the analogie proportion correspondence mutuall relation between the outward signe set forth in the word of Command and the inward grace contained in the word of Promise Now then if there be no mutuall habitude and relation between these two we shall take away the very being and form of a Sacrament Fourthly this doth appear from the weaknesse of that which is usually alledged to the contrary and therefore though it may be true as some say that a Promise may be without a Seal Yet when men have once put their Seal it is necessary that there must be a correspondence between the Seal and the Covenant In like manner it is not absolutely necessary that the Covenant of grace or the word of Promise should be set forth by outward signes that appear to the sences yet the Lord having once in the word of Institution appointed the outward sign to signifie the inward grace in such a case as this is it is necessary that there should be a mutuall relation between the word of Promise and the word of Command They that deny this to my understanding do not only go against the experience of Beleevers but also against the common sense of men Now to gather up all into one summe it is clear First from particular examples Secondly from the general nature of Covenants Thirdly from the definition of a Sacrament standing in relation Fourthly from the weaknesse of that which is usually alledged to the contrary From all these it is evident that there is a mutuall relation between the word of Promise and the word of Command And so I came to confirm the union of the copulative proposition If the children of Beleevers have a right to be baptized by the word of Promise they must have a right to be baptized by the word of Command The consequence is firme and there is a necessary union between both parts And thus I did endeavour to prove to the Brethren of the Separation the truth of that which I did affirm I came to the assumption Secondly whereas they say the promise to you and your children is meant principally of extraordinary gifts and Infants in our dayes are not capable of these For the more effectuall proof of the point I did endeavour to show that this Promise could not only or principally be meant of extraordinary gifts but in a positive sense it pointed to the Covenant of grace and was the very promise made to Abraham The arguments which I did alledge were these First If the promise to you and your children be only and principally meant of extraordinary gifts let any man show what kind of comfort this would minister to men of a troubled spirit that they should
it in your own words pag. 14. Mr. Stephens That there is a Convertibility in Gods word whether it be in Promise or Command shall never by me be denyed therefore I shall not only grant it but maintain it Because all the words of God are sacred or holy and righteous altogether therefore I hope we differ not concerning the congruity of Gods Promises and Commands for doubtlesse there is an harmonie But here is the difference I deny that there is any word of Promise that ever God gave to baptize Beleevers Infants or any word of Command for that purpose For if there were a right by Promise or Command then we should grant that Children ought to have it But because there is no right neither by Promise nor Command therefore we deny the Infants of Beleevers Baptisme c. And thus farre you have spoken From these words of yours I gather that there is a convertibility between the word of Promise and the word of Command You say that you will not only grant it ☞ but also maintain it Sir What is this but in sense to yeeld the maine consequence of my Argument This is the force of my reason If the children of Beleevers have a right to be baptized by the word of Promise they must have a right to be baptized by the word of Command In this case seeing you deny not the convertibility between the Promise and Command of God you do in effect allow the consequence Therefore all the burden of the proof doth lye upon the assumtion Whether the children of Beleevers have a right to be baptized by the word of Promise If this can be proved we shall easily draw in the right of Baptisme by the word of Command in case the Premises be true The one by your own grant and the other by necessary consequence I hope then it is reasonable that I should carry the conclusion Seeing you speak of the sticking of the Chariot wheels that you cannot drive on nor many thousands to Infant-baptisme If you stick anywhere your must stick at the word of Promise Sir Your cheif businesse had been to overthrow the right that Beleevers children have to Baptisme by the word of Promise in the last exhibition thereof If you had done this you had performed the work in two cheif points First You had resolved me in point of conscience for I will assure you that which moves me to beleeve that these words be baptized every one of you are a Command to baptize Father and Child is the near relation that they have to the words that follow For the promise is to you and your children Because the Children are expressed in the word of Promise they are contained in the word of Command And for my part I dare not however you falsly accuse me tear asunder the Promise from the Command or the Command from the Promise in Peters words You know that there is a curse that belongs to them that do adde to or take from the word of God You your self have applyed it to them that do clip and cut and tear asunder the foregoing words of Peter from those that follow after Secondly Had you spent your force upon this Proposition to wit That the children of beleevers have a right to Baptisme by the word of Promise Had you taken this away you had taken away the word of Command As long therefore as this is a firme truth That the children have a right to be baptized by the word of Promise in its last and best exhibition I will ask you no beleef for the right to Baptisme by the word of Command The right to be baptized by the word of Command is the truth of the conclusion Now such a Logician you are to spend your whole answer in a manner upon the deny all of the Conclusion You insist much upon my tearing asunder the Command be baptized every one of you from the words Repent and be baptized If these words be torn asunder it is to hold correspondence with the words that follow For the promise is to you and your Children But Sir whatsoever you suggest to the contrary I trust I shall show that I do not tear these words asunder if you go to the right sense Further it is manifest from your own grants and concessions that the foregoing answer of your Brethren is of no value at all They deny a Convertibility between Gods word of Promise and his word of Command you allow it They hold the Promise to you and your children to be meant of extraordinary gifts and you say that one word in their vindication whether such a promise is principally intended yea or no. Thus you who are so earnest to deny the Baptisme of Infants and the use of the Church the world may see how well you agree among your selves But leaving that which may be gathered from your own grants and concessions I will now come to the points of difference as they lie in debate between us To begin therefore with your reasons by and through which you endeavour to prove that my argument is not rightly grounded on Peters words If I may be so bold with your Method that which you have said may be reduced to these five heads First You endeavour to show that I tear the words of Peter the words be baptized every one of you from the words Repent and Secondly You say that these words be baptized every one of you cannot be spoken to Infants as being not capable of such a command Thirdly You affirme that the Persons to whom Peter directed his speech were no Beleevers If the Parents themselves were no Beleevers their Children could not be the Children of Beleevers Fourthly You endeavour to show that seeing the promise to you and your children did belong to the whole Jewish nation why was not the whole nation baptized Fifthly Like a compassionate man you conclude with advice that I carrie my argument to some other Text seeing it can have no releef from Peters words This Sir setting aside your jeeres and mocks is the pith of your answer I shall therefore desire to bring the aforementioned particulars into question and to go along with you point by point To begin therefore with the first particular viz. my tearing asunder the words of Peter I do willingly agree that whosoever readeth the words of the Apostle he is not to pluck them out of joynt not to tear out the middle of the verse where the words have a necessary dependance I do agree in the generall truth with you that the foregoing words are not to be torn asunder from those that follow But whether this is done by you or by me let that now come to the tryall You stand upon it pag. 1. 2 3 4 5 6. that I do pluck asunder the words be baptized every one of you from the words repent and Sir if you go to words and syllables and to literall formes of expression I have said and do
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
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
doth arise I should for my part be more warie then absolutely to conclude that these men as such were unbeleevers To me it is a strange thing that a man should be 〈◊〉 to the heart for crucifying the Christ and yet not â—â—leeve him to be the Christ There are some other strange passages of yours concerning the spirit of bondage and concerning the meaning of Revel 21.8 which show you to be very rude and unexpert in the true sense of the Scriptures When the spirit saith but the fearfull and the unbeleeving and the abominable and murderers and whoremongers c. Would any man besides your self expound the Fearfull to be meant of all those that lie under the spirit of bondage that all such should have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone By this reason you must needs condemne many tender soules and put them under a heavy condition But Sir that you may not be deceived the word Fearfull must be expounded according to the Analogie of the whole Prophecie which is concerning the sufferings of the Saints under the Antichristian state The word Fearfull then is to be applied to them that deny Christ in the time of persecution for fear of man How crossely then do you apply it to them that are under the spirit of bondage through fear of the justice of God But in this case you do no better with this Scripture then many others do with the raign of Christ upon the Earth They take it that the glory of his Kingdome doth lie in plucking down of Magistracy and Ministery and laying all things level whereas if they did rightly understand the Scriptures and the scope of the Prophecy they would find that the Lord Christ doth begin to raigne when a godly Magistracy is set up in the Common-wealth and a powerfull Ministery assigned to preach the Gospel by vertue of office is seated in the Church But this by the way Now Sir that Peters hearers were true Beleevers of the last dispensation I am moved to beleeve it from this double ground First From the tender of the Promise The Promise was not only offered to them as it was revealed to Abraham and beleeved in all the times of the Jewish Church to wit that the promised Messiah should come but the promise tendered to them was remission of sinne by the blood of the particular Jesus already come whom they had crucified and slaine Secondly I take them to be Beleevers from the receiving of the Promise For as remission of sinne was tendered to them by the blood of the particular Christ So when they on their part did receive the promise so exhibited they were Beleevers And in this sense I say the word of Command was that they and the children under their education should be baptized Fourthly pag. 9. lin 32. You come to the main point to wit that a right to the Promise doth not inferre and bring in a right to Baptisme You argue thus If Peter had a Commission so large to baptize all to whom the Promise did belong then he must have baptized the whole nation of the Jewes and particularly the persons to whom he spake before the word came unto them or before their Conscience was awakened by the word Here Sir I do acknowledge that you speak punctually to the assumption in my argument Therefore for the more clear illustration of the words of Peter and for the more full discovery of the force of the argument which I have alledged I will stay the longer upon this point And to begin with the ground of all I do not say though you are willing to mistake my meaning that a right to the Promise doth absolutely inferre a right to Baptisme for then all beleevers from the beginning of the world would have had a right to Baptisme But I say this that the right which Beleevers and their children have to the Promise as exhibited revealed and declared in the last times under the New Testament this doth inferre and bring in a right to Baptisme And in this doth the force of my argument consist That this may more evidently be declared and that you may judge aright I would intreat you to distinguish between the Promise it self and the severall revelations exhibitions manifestations and editions of the same Promise The Ocean sea is one and the same but yet as it beats upon the Spanish coast it is called the Spanish sea as it beats upon the French coast it is called the French sea and upon the English coast the English sea So the Promise is one and the same to Beleevers and their children yet according to several dispensations it is various manifold To begin therefore with the Promise it self There is but one way of salvation by Christ the promised Seed according to that saying of the Apostle Jesus Christ yesterday and to day and the same for ever Heb. 13.8 But for the degrees of revelation there are three remarkable exhibitions and editions of the Promise The first is for the space of two thousand years from Adam to Abraham The second is for the space of two thousand years from Abraham to Christ The third is from Christ to the end of the world These severall exhibitions of the Promise ought carefully to be distinguished for from hence do arise the differences of Faith the differences of profession of the Faith the difference of Church states the differences of the seals of admission the differences of right to the seals of admission Yea the differences are so great that a true beleever of the heart under one dispensation cannot have a right as such to the Church state or the seal of admission under another dispensation I say he cannot not have a right to the Church state or the seal of admission till he hath received the Promise as exhibited and revealed under that particular dispensation Yet neverthelesse let there be never such great diversitie this will still prove a firme and an undoubted truth in all exhibitions and dispensations that when a man beleeveth the Promise and doth come in the right to Church-membership shall belong to him and to his children Let us now come to instance The first edition of the Promise is for two thousand years from Adam to Abraham and here though God did not show the sonnes of men the Messiah in person as he doth to us nor of what particular familie or nation he should come as he did to the people of the Jewes yet in the general he did make so much of the truth thereof known to them that the Seed of the woman should break the Serpents head Gen. 3.15 He did require them to beleeve the promise so generally revealed and to make publick profession thereof and to such as did beleeve and publickly professe the priviledge did belong to them to be called the people of God and in those times the promise was to beleevers and their naturall seed For proof of this let us
consider that Scripture The sonnes of God saw the daughters of men were faire Gen. 6.2 By sons of God you are not to understand them in that sense as they are meant Rom. 8.14 There it is said If ye be led by the spirit of God then ye are the sons of God The sons of God in the Text of Genesis cannot be taken in this sense that they had the Spirit of God and were led by his Spirit but they are called the sons of God because they were the naturall posterity of beleeving Parents because they were the children of Seth and other holy men who in those times are mentioned to call upon the name of the Lord Gen. 4.26 This sheweth plainly in the time of the first exhibition of the promise that Beleevers children as such had a right to Church-membership with their Parents and I may say also to the seal of admission if any such had been in those first times The second edition of the Promise is for two thousand years from Abraham to Christ And here though the Lord did not go so far with them as to show the promised Seed in person as he hath done to us yet he went further with them then with the Beleeevers of the first dispensation He did not only show them the blessed Seed to come but the particular familie and nation from whence he should come And therefore they that did beleeve under this dispensation were not only bound to beleeve the general promise made to Adam concerning the lost sonnes of men but they were to beleeve the promise made to Abraham they were more particularly bound to joyn themselves to that familie and to make publick profession of the Promise as revealed in the time of that exhibition They that did this the promise did belong to them and to their children and so consequently the children had a right to be admitted into the Church that then was by the initiall seal or by circumcision the seal of admittance Now the third edition of the Promise is from Christ unto the end of the world And here the Lord doth not only show the general promise made to the lost sons of men nor the promised Seed to come of the particular familie of Abraham but he goeth further to show the Messiah individually and in person who he is Iesus Christ conceived by the holy Ghost born of the Virgin Mary suffered under Pontius Pilate c. he is the promised Seed They therefore that beleeve under this dispensation they are not only bound to receive the Promise as generally made in the two former dispensations but they are further required as may appear by the Apostles Sermons to beleeve the Christ come in the flesh and that he is the promised Seed Now they that do receive the Promise as exhibited in this manner have a right to Baptisme the seal of admission into the Church in the times of the New Testament And not only so but as to beleevers in the two former dispensations so in this last and best exhibition of the Covenant the Promise doth hold one and the same in substance to Beleevers and their Children This is the true sense of Peters words and this is the force of my argument Having thus laid down the several exhibitions of the Promise and how in each exhibition the Promise variously dispensed is the ground of Faith Faith the ground of Profession Profession the ground from whence Beleevers in any dispensation have a right to Church membership and so consequently to the seal of admission in each dispensation respectively Having laid down these grounds I come now to answer your objections You say pag. 9. lin 32. If the Commission be so large to baptize all to Whom the Promise doth appertain why doth the Apostle lay such a precise taâ—k upon them to repent before they could be baptized Seeing the Promise did belong to the Nation of the Iewes Rom. 9. Why did not the Apostle baptize the whole Nation Why did he not baptize these particular Iewes that had crucified Christ before they were awakened by the word Why did not hee his endeavour to baptize them against their wills and to take them napping while they were asleep as you do with your Infants in England Sir this is the substance of your cavils To all which I answer those priviledges mentioned Rom. 9. to wit The Covenants the giving of the Law the service of God and the promises all these priviledges dib belong to the Jews not as they were a Nation but as they were a Covenanting Nation For you may find by the scope of the Scripture that these things did not only belong to the naturall Jews but also to the Proselytes and their children as well as to them Exod. 12.48 Secondly When you have all done the naturall Jews were but beleevers and so capable of the seal of admission in their own particular dispensation Nay for the most part these Jewes that looked for the promised Messiah that had the promise and the seal of the promise in their own dispensation formerly they were and as yet are the crucifiers of the particular Messiah and the greatest enemies of the promise as exhibited and revealed in the last times For this very cause Peter did bring the word so sharply home to the conscience to awaken them seeing they could not possibly receive the promise in the last exhibition who had been before the crucifiers of the particular Christ Whereas you say That the Apostle might have baptized them against their wills and have taken them napping as we do with our Infants in England Sir Your comparison will not hold for the Infants of this Church though they have no actuall understanding yet they are the children of such as do beleeve at least such as professe they do beleeve the particular Christ They do not only beleeve the promised Messiah that he should come of the stock of Abraham as did the Beleevers of the Jewish Church but they beleeve at least they professe they beleeve the particular Christ which the Jewish Nation had crucified and slaine Further they professe that they will bring up their Infants at least they are willing that their Infants should be taught by the publick Ministery under which they live by and through it to be brought up in the Christian Faith and so to look after the Christ For this reason Sir your comparison will not hold betwixt the Infants of this Nation and the Jews that were the crucifiers of the Christ Further you go on and reason pag. 10. lin 17. If the promise did belong to the Jews and their children why did not the Prophets baptize this is to call the Prophets accursed for the neglect of the dutie that appertained to them To which I answer I should have called the Prophets accursed if they had neglected to call upon the people to beleeve the promise and to apply the seal of the promise to themselves and to their children so far as it
Though much hath been written and said to finde out this or that interpretation yet for my part I cannot possibly find out a sense how the Children of the Corinthians as born of one or two beleeving Parents may be said to be holy if this be not meant of Covenant holynesse In the two former dispensations for four thousand years together the children of beleevers were accounted the sons of God Gen. 6.2 3. The holy Seed Ezra 9.2 The holy People Dan. 8.24 The Children of the Kingdome Matth. 8.11 The Children of the Covenant Act. 3.25 And such like expressions Therefore when the Apostle speaketh of the Children of the beleeving Corinthians that because one or both Parents did beleeve and professe therefore the Children were holy I cannot understand this any other way but of the Birth-priviledge of Beleevers Children now in the last aswell as in the two former editions of the Promise Therefore when it is said in the Text that many of the Corinthians beleeving were baptized I cannot see how the words can bear any other sense but this Many of the Corinthians beleeving were baptized they and their housholds as Crispus the chief ruler of the Synagogue beleeved and was baptized he and his houshould The Analogue doth stand between Crispus and other Beleevers between the houshold of Crispus and the housholds of other Beleevers and this I take to be the true meaning of the Text. I have stayed the longer upon this point to show that we have not only a Precept but a competent number of examples out of the New Testament for the Baptisme of Beleevers and their Children But now Sir lest you should take occasion to cavill at examples aswell as at the Precept I will insist upon the former part of the verse and urge you only with this question Whether do you think that Crispus beleeving on the Lord with all his house was baptized with the rest of the Corinthians yea or no If you deny it how will you prove constant to your own principles of Beleevers Baptisme Why should not Crispus a prime Beleever be baptized aswell as the rest of the Corinthians that did beleeve through grace But if you affirme it as affirm it you must then it is necessary seeing his Baptisme is not expressed in so many Letters that you supply the former part of the Verse with the sense of the words that follow after Now let me do the like with Peters words and you shall find an excellent harmonie Then Peter said repent and be baptized every one of you and your children in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sinne for the Promise belongs to you and your children So I beleeve the words of Peter and desight to hear their sweet agreement I do delight to read the Children in the word of Command seeing they are so plainly expressed in the word of Promise Now Sir let us see how you conclude You bid me as I tender the life of my argument to have him to some other place for relief You tell me pag. 12. lin 1. that you have received an order from Quarter-Master Generall that the tent of my argument be removed from the Text that it may no longer cumber the holy ground it being appointed for a piece of service more honourable Surely Sir when you wrote these things I cannot otherwise think but that you had some high opinion of your own performance Whereas you advise me to have my argument to some other place belike you would have me to understand that you had according to the title of your book conquered all before you But I will assure you Sir to deal plainly with you and that you may not flatter your self you are so far from taking my chief Fort as you pretend that you have not at all or at least in small degree given an assault thereunto And then let any Logician in the world judge what reason you had to glory in your conquest You stand much upon my rending and tearing asunder the words be baptized every one of you from the words Repent and Now this is not so for in a Covenant sence the Children do repent or make profession of repentance in the Parents that do undertake for them But if this could be proved what is it to the force of my Argument which you undertake to answer The medium the middle terme or the reason from the words of the text is not from the words be baptized every one of you as you would make the reader beleeve but from these words for the Promise is to you and your Children Because the Children are plainly expressed in the word of promise this is to me a true ground wherefore they are contained in the word of Command Now let any man judge that reads Baby-Baptisme routed or the taking of the chief Fort as it is in the title of your Pamphlet what you have done in the body of your answer against the principall medium against the right that the Children have to Baptisme by the word of Promise Seeing you did grant the Proposition it was needfull to spend your force upon the assumption Again Mr. Everard you insist upon this that the Jews the whole Nation of them because they had a right to the word of Promise why had they not a right to Baptisme by the word of Command Here you make a faire flourish upon the generality of the promise without any distinction at all But whosoever he is that will distinguish the severall dispensations of one and the same promise and the right that Beleevers and their Children have to the Seal in each dispensation he shall find that you have said just nothing And you that talked so much of taking the chief Fort have stollen away secretly from it as the enemy did from the seige of Bergen-ap-Zome in the smoake of Gun-powder Further suppose there had been some weaknesse in my Argument yet there is no such cause as you advise to remove its Tent from the coasts of the Text for I will assure you as long as I read these words For the Promise is to you and your Children as long as I read these words in the last exhibition of the Promise and a promise answering the word of Command as long as I read a convertibility between the word of Command and the word of Promise in Baptisme aswell as in other Sacraments I shall be loath to obey the order which you say you have received from Quarter-Master Generll to discharge me of the Text. But seeing you will needs be so pitifull to a poor Argumeet in your apprehension beaten upon the Ice I would intreat you that you would not deal so unkindly with him as to remove him from the Text. For if I be not greatly mistaken this Scripture is not so barren to afford one only Argument but it is a wel-spring and Fountaine of Arguments for the Baptisme of Beleevers and their Children When you come to tryall
you will sind always when you take away one another will spring up But Sir let the worst fall out that can be if you should imagine that there were no footing for my Argument in the Text and the Text as you say pag. 12. lin 10. would claime no acquaintance or kindred with it yet the Argument may be true in the general and may be made good from other Texts of Scripture For if the Promise to Beleevers and their Children doth hold in the times of the last exhibition aswell as in the two former then necessarily the word of Promise will draw in the word of Command and the right to the Promise in its last and best exhibition will inforce a right to the Seal And so we shall have a Precept for the Baptisme of Beleevers and their Children proved from the scope of Scripture and do you your worst Now Sir in the last place let me come to the structure and frame of my Argument You say pag. 12. lin 28. that the premises do not hold due proportion with the conclusion you say either the premises are superfluous or the conclusion is wanting I do willingly yeild in every lawfull Syllogisme that the premises must have due correspondence with the conclusion But how The correspondence must not alwayes be in letters and syllables but in sense and meaning But why is there such a disproportion betwixt the premises and the conclusion You say that the Premises speak that the children of Beleevers must have a right the Conclusion is they have a right You say that must have a right and have a right are not all one after a while is not yet There be many that are heires in England can say they must have with caution but they had rather say they have in possession pag. 13. lin 3. Sir these are but cavils at words as any man may plainly see For have a right and must have a right are all one in the sense of the Argument Now that I did put in the word must it was to show the union and necessary connexion between the two parts of the conditional proposition For your instance of an heire in England we are not now upon the division of Lands but upon the union of the parts of a proposition But to show that this is a true hypothetical Syllogisme I will according to the rule of the Logicians reduce it to a Categorical forme and put it in the first figure as followeth They that have a right to be baptized by the word of Promise have a right to be baptized by the word of Command But the children of Beleevers have a right to be baptized by the word of Promise Therefore the children of Beleevers have a right to be baptized by the word of Command And so consequently there is a word of Command to baptize Beleevers Children in the New Testament Now by the rule of reduction I leave it to your self and to any other man to judge what cause you had to except against the stucture of my Syllogisme You go on and cavill against the Major proposition and reason thus pag. 13. If the Children of Beleevers have a right to be baptized by the word of Promise there is no need of a right to be baptized by the word of Command Sir I confesse that God is not bound alwayes to adde a Seal to the confirmation of his Promise we may beleeve his word without addition of Seals But I speak in a Sacramental relation where he hath once appointed a Sacrament for the use of his Church they that have a right to the Promise have a right to the Seal As for example The body of the faithfull have a right to remission of sin by the blood of Christ aswell as their guides and teachers And therefore under that title they have let the Papists say what they will a right also to the cup of the New Testament in Christs blood 1 Cor. 11.25 So in the like case seeing the Promise is to Beleevers and their Children in the last and best exhibition therefore do what you can if the Children of Beleevers have a right to the Promise so exhibited they must have a right to the Seal Further You call the right that Beleevers children have to baptisme by the word of Promise a cloudy saying pag. 13. The saying is a clear Scripture truth but it may be a cloudy saying to such as will not see what they may see It is a cloudy saying at this day to the Jew that Jesus Christ is the promised Messiah spoken of in the Prophets and it is a cloudy saying to the Papist that a man is justified by Faith alone and so it is a cloudy saying to you that the Children of Beleevers have a right to Baptisme by the word of Promise as revealedin the last times But you are to consider that the darknesse is not in the sayings but the clouds are in your own blind mindes that cannot or will not see the truth You go on and further except against the right that the children of Beleevers have to Baptisme by the word of Promise And because you will put some absurdity upon the saying you argue thus pag. 13. If there be such a necessity to baptize the children of Beleeveers it is either for God to baptize them or for his servants to baptize them To speak briefly and plainly there is a necessity of Precept that lieth upon all Christian Parents that do beleeve the Christ come in the flesh to professe the Faith and to baptize their Children For herein lieth a considerable part of the Christian profession not only for the Father to ingage himself by Baptisme to Christ come in the flesh but he is bound also to bring in his children and those that live under his education into the same ingagement Therefore Sir I do much question if either you or any man else shall refuse to oblige your infants to the Lord Christ whether you do hold forth the whole confession of the faith of Christ come in the flesh I will make no particular application but sure I am St. John saith in the general Every spirit that confesseth not Christ come in the flesh is not of God and this is the spirit of Antichrist 1 Joh. 3.3 But now to shut up all as I began so I conclude that there is a Precept in the New Testament for the Baptisme of Infants My Argument as it was formerly is still the same with some amplification I argue from Peters words after this manner They that have a right to Baptisme by the word of Promise as exhibited in the last times they have a right to be baptized by the word of Command But the children of Beleevers have a right to Baptisme by the word of Promise as exhibited in the last times Therefore the children of Beleevers have a right to be baptized by the word of Command And fo consequently in the New Testament there is a Precept to baptize