A Precept for the Baptism of Infants, Precept

A Precept for the Baptism of Infants · Precept

p. 1A PRECEPT for the Baptiſme of Infants out of the New Teſtament.

THat this matter may be the more clearly underſtood, I will firſt alledge thoſe particular places of Scripture from whence the Precept is proved. Secondly, I will vindicate the argument which I gave to prove a Precept, from the exceptions of the Brethren of the Separation, and eſpecially from the late Treatiſe of Maſter Everard. For the places of Scripture, there are three texts in the New Teſtament which (as farre as I apprehend) being rightly expounded and cleared, will prove a Precept.

The firſt is Matth. 28.19. where our Saviour ſpeaketh to his Apoſtles, Go teach all Nations, baptizing them, &c. He would have them now go to al Nations, that were formerly outcaſts of the Covenant, and ſtrangers from the Common-wealth of Iſrael, Epbeſ. 2. verſe 11, 17. He would have them go teach, diſciple, and covenant all Nations in the Faith; and when the Nations ſhall come to be diſcipled, taught, covenanted, and brought ſo farre to own the faith of Chriſt come in the fleſh, then the commiſſion is, baptize the diſcipled Nations: to wit the beleeving parents, and the children, ſo farre forth at leaſt as they live under that education and tuition. Now contrarily, whereas many late Writers will have a Diſciple able to make actuall profeſſion in his own perſon, the only ſubject of Baptiſme; They are (to my underſtanding) greatly deceived in this point. For if the words of the text be literally, truly, and grammatically read, not Nations onelyonly, nor Diſciples onelyonly, but diſcipled Nations are the ſubject of Baptiſme. When our Saviour ſaith, Teach all Nations, baptizing them, who are they that he doth mean by the word (them)? doth he not mean the Nations, the beleeving Nations, the parents and their children? If it had been his minde that his Apoſtles ſhould baptize ſuch onelyonly as did actually beleeve and profeſſe in their own perſons, and none p. 2of their children, what could have been more eaſily ſaid then this, Go make Diſciples out of all Nations, and ſuch perſons that ye have made Diſciples baptize them onelyonly? If this had been his meaning, he could eaſily have expreſt himſelf, that perſons ſo and ſo qualified are the onelyonly ſubjects of Baptiſme. But ſeeing he ſaith Go teach all Nations baptizing them, he doth look here to a progeny and to a poſterity of beleevers; he doth here look to the Nations ſo farre forth as they conſiſt of beleeving parents, and children under their education. Seeing in the affirmative a diſcipled Nation is the ſubject of Baptiſme, in the negative a Nation not diſcipled is excluded from Baptiſme.

Now if any man ſhall ſay, where have you in the New Teſtament a Precept for the baptiſm of infants? I will ſay, In the words of the Commiſſion. If he ſhall reply, that there is no mention made of children in that text; My anſwer is, though they be not expreſſed in ſo many letters and ſyllables, yet they are contained in the word (them). When our Saviour ſaith Teach all nations baptizing them, his meaning is to baptize them parents that profeſſe, in their own perſons, and their children ſo farre forth as they live under their Chriſtian education. Both together make a diſcipled Nation; and both joyntly are the ſubject of Baptiſme by the word of the Commiſſion. But that the children are contained in the word (them), Go teach all Nations baptizing them, I prove thus;

Firſt, laying down the moſt remarkable circumſtances of the commiſion.

Secondly, by compating it with other places of the New Teſtament that have a near relation to it.

Thirdly, by ſhowing the abſurdities that will follow in caſe the infants are not included where the Nation doth profeſſe.

For the circumſtances, there are three remarkable and ſpeciall ones that ſhow the children to be contained in the word of Inſtitution.

Firſt, when our Saviour ſaith Go teach all Nations, there all Nations are ſet in immediate oppoſition to one Nation; all Nations in Covenant to the particular Nation of the Jewes in Covenant. And therefore as the particular Nation of the Jews had the Covenant and the Seale, to admit them and their Infants into the Church, in the time of their own diſpenſation: So it is the minde of Chriſt in that ſence of the Commiſſion, that when the Nations receive the faith, they ſhould have the Covenant and the Seale for themſelves and their children in the time of the new diſpenſation. If this be ſo, that the oppoſition is between Nation and Nation, all Nations and that particular Nation, we may build upon it that in theſe words go teach all Nations Baptizing them, the children are compriſed in the word Nations, but more particularly in the word p. 3them; and are in the ſence of the Commiſſion, together with their parents, the proper ſubjects of Baptiſme. If this be not ſo, what will become of the oppoſition betwixt all Nations in Covenant and that one Nation?

Secondly, by the time when the Commiſſion was given. It was at that inſtant when circumciſion ceaſed to be the Seale of admiſſion into the Jewiſh Church, after it had ſtood for two thouſand yeers together; At that very inſtant the Lord did appoint Baptiſme as an initial Seal to come in the place of Circumciſion; to performe the ſame office in the Churches of the Gentiles as Circumciſion did before in the particular Church of the Jewes. So then, if Circumciſion (as all do know) was the door to let in Father and Child into the Jewiſh Church, in all the time of that adminiſtration, we can judge no other but that it was the minde of Chriſt in his Commiſſion, that his Apoſtles ſhould teach all Nations: and ſuch of them as ſhould receive the faith, they ſhould by Baptiſme be let into the Church, beleeving Parents and their Children, after that manner as they were admitted in all the time of the adminiſtration going before.

Thirdly, when our Saviour gave Commiſſion to his Diſciples, Go teach all Nations, the doctrine that he would have them teach, was no other but the doctrine of the Goſpel delivered unto Abraham in the nature of a Covenant. The Scripture fore-ſeeing that God would juſtifie the Heathen through faith, preached before the Goſpel to Abraham, ſaying, in thy ſeed ſhall all the kindreds of the earth be bleſſed, Gal. 3.8. being compared with Acts 3.24, 25. Rom. 4.11. Epheſ. 2.11, 12, 13. If therfore it was the minde of Chriſt, that through the Apoſtles preaching, the bleſſing of the particular families of Abraham ſhould be conveighed to all the beleeving families of the earth; what can be more rational to conceive according to the Commiſſion, but that the Promiſe and the Seale are to be applyed to the beleeving families of the earth, to Father and Child, as it was formerly to the particular family of Abraham? The bleſſing muſt needs go from family to family, from the particular family of Abraham in the times of Circumciſion, to all the beleeving families of the earth in the times of Baptiſme.

So then, the chief circumſtances of the Commiſſion being laid together; Firſt, all Nations in Covenant, ſtanding in immediate oppoſition to one Nation of the Jewes. Secondly, the circumſtance of time, that Baptiſme did preciſely begin at that inſtant, to be the Seale of admiſſion into the Church gathered out of all Nations when Circumciſion ceaſed. Thirdly, the ſubſtance of the doctrine, by preaching the Goſpel the p. 4Apoſtles 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. p. 5Therefore 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 p. 6ſpeak? 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 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 ou… ▪ 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 p. 7ſuch 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.

p. 8Sol. 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 acknowledge; but that he is the only ſubject of Baptiſme, to the excluding of Infants under the Chriſtian education, this I deny. And I know no reaſon why we ſhould tye up the ſence of the Commiſſion (a law to continue in all ages) to that particular inſtance of our Saviours making and baptizing Diſciples in thoſe firſt times. Give me leave to proceed in the like manner, and ſee whether by the rigor of ſome examples (in appearance at leaſt) I may not be able to break the force of any generall rule. Therefore let us take it as a granted maxime, that a Diſciple outwardly profeſſing, that every ſuch a one is the lawfull ſubject of Baptiſme. In ſuch a caſe as this is, what if a man would be peeviſh againſt Diſciple-baptiſme, p. 9might he not find out many colourable ſhowes? What if he ſhould ſay that ſuch as are able to ſpeak with divers languages, by the extraordinary gift of the Holy Ghoſt, ſuch only ought to be baptized? Will he not have a fair plea from the example of Cornelius and his company? They were not baptized till the Holy Ghoſt fell upon them, Act. 10.44, 45, 46, 47. Again, what if he ſhould ſay, that a Miniſter at the entrance of his function, that he is the only ſubject of Baptiſme? Was not our Saviour baptized at 30 years of age, at the beginning of his Miniſtery? Further, what if he ſhould affirme, that they that have taſted of the ſpirit of bondage, ought only to be baptized? Did not Ananias baptize Paul after great horrors? And were not the body of the people baptized by John in Jordan confeſſing their ſinnes? Laſt of all, what if he ſhould ſtand upon it, that only a beleever of the heart can be baptized? How plauſibly may he reaſon from the ſpeech of Philip to the Eunuch? What doth hinder me to be Baptized? If thou beleeveſt with all thine heart, thou mayeſt. Act. 8.36, 37. So then if you take 500 Diſciples of the Doctrine in ordinary experience, you will ſcarce find 50 that have a true faith in the heart. By the ſtrictneſs of this Rule not only Infants, but the greater part of Diſciples that make outward profeſſion, muſt needs be excluded from Baptiſme. For of the greater part that make outward profeſſion, who can rationally or probably, or in the judgment of Charity (at leaſt by their fruits) conceive that the greater part have a true faith wrought in the heart. And thus you ſee how Diſciple baptiſme, (which the Separation themſelves allow,) is torne down by the preciſeneſſe and rigour of particular examples.

I ſay then, that there lyeth a truth in all the forenamed examples; there lyeth a particular truth, that men ſo and ſo qualified, were the lawfull ſubjects of Baptiſme: but it doth not prove them to be the adequate and full ſubjects of Baptiſme. He that doth beleeve in the heart, with a true faith, may lawfully be baptized; but we muſt not ſay, that a true juſtifying faith is neceſſarily required to the adminiſtration of Baptiſme. So in the preſent caſe, when our Saviour firſt made, and then baptized Diſciples in the firſt plantation of the faith, there is no doubt but he did lawfully baptize ſuch as made actuall profeſſion. But the Queſtion is in the ſeverall ſucceſſions of the Church; when Religion is once planted, whether ſuch actuall profeſſion is neceſſarily required in all them that are baptized? In this caſe I ſay, the Apoſtles and their ſucceſſors having the whole of the Nations to bring to the faith, they muſt needs carry on the work by degrees, by the joynt acts of teaching and baptizing. In this ſence, teaching muſt needs go before baptizing p. 10when the Goſpel is to be planted; and baptizing before teaching after the firſt plantation; And ſo both acts teach baptizing, and baptize teaching, are to continue together in fluxe and ſucceſſion in all Chriſtian Nations to the end of the World. Therefore when our Saviour gave forth the Commiſſion, teach all Nations, baptizing them; we are not to think that he did look only to the time being, but to the continuation of a Chriſtian progenie and poſterity upon the Earth. If this be ſo, a Diſcipled Nation is the lawfull ſubject of Baptiſme; and the beleeving Father (in the ſence of the Commiſſion) is to be baptized with his Child.

But ſeeing they that diſſent from us are ſo willing to expound the Commiſſion by parallel Scriptures, I am content to apply my ſelf to that method. And therefore when the Prophets all along ſpeak of the call of the Gentiles, and of the bringing in of the body of the Nations; I would know the time when theſe Prophecies did begin to be fulfilled: They that diſſent from us muſt needs ſay, at that time when our Saviour bid his Diſciples go teach all Nations, baptizing them; they muſt needs ſay at that particular time he did begin to put the forementioned Promiſes and Prophecies in execution. If this be ſo, we cannot imagine when he ſaid teach all Nations baptizing them, that his meaning was to gather a few Diſciples out of all Nations by teaching and baptizing. This might have been done in two or three of a Nation, only without the bringing in of the body of the Nations. But the words of the Commiſſion containe a Promiſe a ſwell as a Precept: for our Saviour doth promiſe that the body of the Nations, firſt or laſt, ſhould be brought to the faith, and this we find more particularly declared in the whole book of the Revelation, and verified in our own experience.

From all that hath been ſaid we gather that not only all Diſciples, ſo made by actuall Teaching, but all Nations, ſo far forth as they are under Diſcipling and Teaching, and ſo far forth as they ſubmit themſelves to be diſcipled and taught, they and their Children living under the Chriſtian education, are a Diſcipled Nation, and in the ſence of the Commiſſion the lawfull ſubject of Baptiſme.

Object. 4. Fourthly, If it be demanded what certain rule can be given to know a Diſcipled Nation?

Sol. There is nothing more eaſie to know then the publike profeſſion of a Nation. We may eaſily diſcerne how far forth they do acknowledge the Chriſt come in the fleſh, how far forth they look to have remiſſion of ſinne by his blood, how far forth they are willing to have their Children brought up in the Faith. Theſe things are in the publike veiw of p. 11men, and therefore as of old in one Nation of the Jews, when the Fathers were made proſelites by teaching, there was a command in that diſpenſation to circumciſe Father and Child as members of a diſcipled Nation. So in the Church gathered out of all Nations, as the Parents do now receive the Faith, and do enter into Covenant to profeſſe the Christ come in the fleſh, ſo far they and theirs muſt go under the account of a diſcipled Nation. And for the evidence of this to the adminiſtrator of Baptiſme, they may be known to be ſuch by the badg of their outward profeſſion.

But yet nevertheleſſe for a more clear underſtanding of things and the taking away of doubts that may ariſe, let us diſtinguiſh between a Nation under Paganiſme, and a Nation where Chriſtian Religion is ſet up in the throne. If you ſpeak of a Nation under Paganiſme, we may ſay that ſuch a Nation is ſo far diſcipled, as any part of it doth ſubmit to the Faith. As for example, when Paul came to Rome to preach the Goſpel, by his preaching he did not make the whole people of Rome a diſcipled people. But they were ſo far forth made a diſcipled Nation as any particular men in that City did beleeve, and did engage themſelves to bring up all under their education in the faith of the Chriſt come in the fleſh: ſo far they became a diſcipled Nation, and no further. And this is the reaſon wherefore in thoſe firſt times we read only of the Baptiſme of Beleevers and their houſholds, becauſe then the Chriſtian education was only in the houſes of the Faithfull; the Roman Emperour being as yet but a ſtep-father and an enemy to the Church.

Secondly, If you conſider a Nation ſo far forth as the Chriſtian Faith is ſet up as the Religion of the State, in this ſence we take a diſcipled Nation in a larger extent. For not only the families of thoſe that truly beleeve, but the families of others alſo that are willing to yeeld to the Chriſtian education, and to live under the tuition of a godly Magiſtracy in the Common-wealth, and the inſtruction of a powerfull Miniſtery in the Church; ſo far forth as they are willing to be guided by the Lawes and the Government of the Church of Chriſt, and are no worſe, ſo far they muſt go under the notion of a diſcipled Nation: and Parents and Children both be the lawfull ſubject of Baptiſme. If this be not ſo, let any man ſhew a reaſon why God ſhould tye his grace only to the Children of thoſe that truly beleeve, when the Children of others alſo are willing to live under the ſhadow of his Ordinances; and therein to wait for the in-coming and influence of his grace. In Abrahams family, not only they that were borne in his houſe, but they that were bought with his money, were eſteemed to belong to that education, Gen. 17.12, 17. p. 12If any ſhall ſay, that this was the time of the Jewiſh Church ſtate to take in all under that Government. He that doth ſo reaſon, let him ſhew the meaning of the Spirit in the Revelation, when he ſpeaketh of the reign of Chriſt upon the Earth, ch. 20. and of the Kingdoms of this world, that they became the Kingdoms of our Lord and of his Chriſt, ch. 11. ver. 15.17. What is the meaning of this, but that the Kingdoms of this world being before the Kingdomes of the Beaſt, and yeelding ſubjection to his univerſall Headſhip, they became the Kingdomes of Chriſt, to live in ſubjection under the Goſpel as the Regent Law. By all that hath been ſpoken, a diſcipled Nation may be known by their ſubjection to the Goſpel, at leaſt by their outward profeſſion of the Faith to which they do ſubmit.

I have ſtayed the longer upon this point by reaſon of a Queſtion that was put to me when I was at Earle-ſhilton. For being there, and inſiſting upon the Baptiſme of Beleevers and their Children, and that from the words of Peter, Act. 2.38, 39. a Queſtion was then put to me in theſe words; By what right do you baptize the Children in your Pariſh, do you take all your Pariſhioners for true Beleevers? My Anſwer then was, and now is; That I do baptize them as branches of a diſcipled Nation. For ſeeing the Parents do outwardly profeſſe the Chriſt come in the fleſh, and becauſe they are willing that I ſhould teach their Children the principles of the Faith, upon this conſideration I do baptize the Children aforeſaid. So far as I underſtand I have a word of command for it: The Children being contained in the word (them,) teach all Nations baptizing them.

Now whereas ſome godly People in theſe times impute the evils among us to Infant-baptiſme, in this they are deceived; it is for want of a Diſcipline to hold us unto that which we do profeſſe. Let any man take away a Coercive-government out of a Common-wealth, a Diſcipline from an Army, a Rod out of a Schoole; and then let him ſee whether he may not count as many diſorders in thoſe wayes, as now he doth ſee in Pariſh-Churches.

To ſay the truth, we have had never an Excommunication, at leaſt none rightly uſed, and this hath been a great cauſe of the evill in the Parochiall-Church-way, in which now we ſtand. Therefore if things be out of order among us, (as indeed they are,) I do willingly confeſſe that this doth ariſe from the want of a Diſcipline, to make a ſeparation between the Precious and the Vile: It doth ariſe from want of diligent Catechiſing of Children according to the ſtrict truſts of their Baptiſme when they were firſt admitted: It doth ariſe from the want of a powerfull p. 13and ſpirituall Miniſtery, as formerly in greater meaſure, ſo now alſo in too too many places. It doth ariſe alſo from the want of Communion of Saints to carry on the work of grace in one anothers heart,

Theſe are the cauſes of diſorder, by which all the reſt is put out of frame. They then that impute theſe miſchiefes to Infant-baptiſme, they do impoſe upon us with a Sophiſme, they put that for the cauſe which is not the cauſe. That this may appeear, let us take it as granted; That a Diſciple able to make outward profeſſion in his own Perſon, is the only ſubject of Baptiſme. I ſay then by their own rule, the Maſters of Diviſion cannot deny Baptiſme to a Child of eight or ten years old, when he is able to repeat the principles of the Faith. If they deny it to ſuch a one, they muſt deny Baptiſme to a Diſciple; and what is this but to croſſe their own-principles? Again, if they admit ſuch a one to outward Baptiſme, (as admit him they muſt,) what true difference is there between ſuch a one and an Infant of three dayes old, eſpecially ſuch an Infant whoſe Parents will faithfully promiſe and ingage for his education? For my part I am not acute enough to ſee a difference, at leaſt ſuch a difference, that men ſhould demoliſh Pariſhes, overturne Foundations, tear Churches and Congregations in peices, diſturb the peace of the Church and the Common-wealth, and ſet all on fire (as I apprehend) for bables and trifles. I have done with the firſt place, I come now to the moſt ſpeciall Scripture to prove the Baptiſme of Infants from the promiſe made to Beleevers and their Children.

The ſecond Scripture to prove a precept, is from the words of Peter in the firſt ſolemne adminiſtration of Baptiſme, Act. 2.38, 39. Now that this may be more fully underſtood, I will take the liberty to open the Text in a plain and familiar way, by queſtion 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 p. 14together. 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, Ʋnto 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 p. 15times 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 onelyonly?

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?

p. 16Fourthly, 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. This is the meaning of the text, that the promiſe doth belong to the children of Beleevers, whether Jewes or Gentiles, whether in the ſecond or in the third diſpenſation, the promiſe doth belong to the children when the parents come to embrace the faith. On this ground doth the Apoſtle urge the word of command to father and child, be baptized every one of you, and this I take to be the true meaning of the text.

Queſt. So you ſay, but what ſufficient reaſon can you bring to aſſure the conſcience?

Anſw. That which doth much aſſure me is the Apoſtles own interpretation in the chapter following, for there he ſhoweth that the bleſſing in the particular family of Abraham ſhall be applyed to all the beleeving families, kindreds, and nations of the earth, Acts 3.25, 26. with Gal. 3.8. Gen. 12.3. Now what is this but that the promiſe ſhall be one and the ſame to them that beleeve among the Gentiles and their families, as to them that did beleeve among the Jewes and their families. He doth not ſpeak onelyonly of Beleevers in perſon, but of Beleevers and their children; why elſe doth he ſay concerning Chriſt, the promiſed ſeed, all the families ſhall be bleſſed in him? Why elſe doth he uſe this expreſſion, But that the promiſe now in the laſt times is ſtill one and the ſame to Beleevers and their families? On this ground doth he build the word of command to the parents that did beleeve and to their children, Be baptized every one of you.

Queſt. If this be the meaning of the command, why is there no more frequent mention of the Baptiſme of children in the New Teſtament?

Anſw. Becauſe the Apoſtles after the giving forth of the commiſſion had principally to deal with the Jewes, to bring them out of Judaiſme, and with the Gentiles to bring them out of Gentiliſme, their work did lye eſpecially in this, For this cauſe we read more often of the Baptiſme p. 17of ſuch that did beleeve and profeſſe in their own perſon. Yet nevertheleſſe we find it again and again repeated in the ſtory of the N. Teſtament, that ſuch and ſuch a one beleeveth, and was baptized, he and his houſe. So farre therefore as I can diſcern, the ordinary baptizing of houſholds in thoſe dayes is a plain example to illuſtrate the word of command in the Apoſtles words, to baptize beleevers and their children.

Queſt. For the baptiſme of houſholds though we do read this again and again repeated, yet we are to underſtand it of ſuch only that did make outward profeſſion.

Anſw. True, The Apoſtles did baptize ſuch as did profeſſe in their own perſons, yet they did baptize the houſholds, in relation to the fathers engagement. For the proof of this I do offer theſe enſuing reaſons, Firſt, it was the general practiſe of the Church going before when the father did beleeve and profeſſe, he was received with his houſhold, Exod. 12.48. Therefore when the Apoſtles did baptize in the new Adminiſtration, we can conceive no other but they did follow the common uſe in receiving the father that did beleeve with his children. Secondly, when they did preach the Goſpel they did bring the bleſſing of Abraham into the beleeving families of the earth. If they did this, they muſt needs in the laſt diſpenſation apply the promiſe and the ſeale generally to all beleeving families of the earth, in the ſame manner as formerly it was applyed to the particular family of Abraham. Now what is this but to take in the profeſſing parent with his children? Thirdly, in thoſe times thoſe that were brought out of Judaiſme or Paganiſme did at the time of their entrance into the Church make a ſolemne league and covenant with God to profeſſe the faith, they and their families, Acts 16.14. 1 Cor. 1.12, 13, 14. Epheſ. 6.4. Therefore when the Apoſtles did baptize the houſholds of beleevers, we cannot conceive that they did this only in relation to ſome perſons that made actual profeſſion, but in relation to the fathers ingagement that did undertake for himſelf and for his children. Fourthly, they that ſay the Apoſtles did baptize the houſholds, and ſuch in the houſholds only as did actually beleeve and profeſſe, they that ſay this let them ſhow a reaſon why the houſhold of Lydia was baptized; for we read only of her that the Lord opened her heart to beleeve the Chriſt. If you will ſay that her family was baptized in relation to her undertaking, then the reaſon will lye cleare in the text, Lydia was judged faithful to the Lord, and ſo was baptized, ſhe and her houſhold. Acts. 16.14.

All theſe reaſons put together plainly demonſtrate the Apoſtolical practiſe to baptize beleevers houſholds, in relation to their undertaking p. 18for themſelves and for their children. If this be ſo, there muſt needs be an example to anſwer the Apoſtolical precept; Be baptized every one of you (Father and Child) for the Promiſe is to you and to your children. And ſo from the words of Peter, compared with the practiſe of other Apoſtles, we have both a precept and an example for the Baptiſme of Children in the New-Teſtament, and (as I think) our task is done. I come now to the third Scripture to prove the neceſſity of Infant-baptiſme.

Thirdly, In the conference with Nicodemus, our Saviour doth inſiſt much upon the pollution of the Naturall birth, and the neceſſity of Regeneration, both by Water without, and the Spirit within. Now in this Scripture there is included a Precept to Beleevers to apply the outward waſhing to their Children (born in Originall ſinne) the Seal of the inward waſhing. That this may bee made manifeſt I will

Firſt clear the Text from two ordinary miſtakes.

Secondly, from the words rightly expounded, I will ſhow how the precept is deduced by neceſſary conſequence.

For the miſtaks, in the firſt place they do over ſhoot themſelves that plead from hence an abſolute neceſſitie of the Baptiſme of infants. Indeed there is an abſolute neceſſitie that all that are borne in Originall ſinne, if they be ſaved, they muſt be ſaved by the Covenant, but there is not a like neceſſitie of the Seal. In the times of the firſt diſpenſation to comfort Beleevers in reſpect of their Children born in Originall ſinne, the promiſe then was, The ſeed of the woman ſhall break the Serpents head. Gen. 3.15. Yet there was no Seal of this Promiſe, no initiall Seal for two thouſand years together, from Adam to Abraham. Further there was not ſuch abſolute neceſſity of the Seal in the times of Circumciſion for thoſe that died before the eight day.

There was then (as now is,) an abſolute neceſſity of Salvation by the Promiſe and the Covenant: but the neceſſity of the Seal was only conditionall, ſo far forth as it might be well had. Therefore, when the ancient Writers (Fathers and Schoolmen) ſpeak ſo much of the neceſſity of Baptiſme, and of the Salvation of Infants, ſtrictly and preciſely upon terms of Baptiſme, to my underſtanding they aſcribe too much to the outward Ordinance, and ſo do erre in the other extreme. For the hope of Salvation doth not lye ſo much in the Seal, as in the Promiſe to which the Seal is annexed. Indeed the Lord having made a Promiſe, to Beleevers concerning their Children born in Originall ſinne, That he will be their God and the God of their ſeed, in this caſe they muſt beleeve his p. 19word, and where he hath ordained a Seal for the confirmation of their Faith, they muſt take heed how they neglect to apply it, they muſt not (as more then too many do in theſe dayes) think it a ſuperfluous, or an idle figure. All that we plead is this, that there is a neceſſity that lyeth upon beleeving Parents to baptize their Children born in Originall ſinne. But how? the neceſſity is not abſolute but conditionall. In caſe the Child dye before Baptiſme, he may be ſaved by the Covenant and by the Promiſe of God; yet I think ſuch a Parent that doth careleſly omit his duty, he will very hardly anſwer his neglect to God himſelf, his Church, and I think at laſt to his own conſcience.

Secondly, To my underſtanding alſo they go too far, whoſoever they be that do conclude that Baptiſme doth Regenerate, or that it doth confer grace by the work done. It is a difficult point rightly to divide the matter between two extremes. If therefore I may deliver my thoughts concerning this matter, I do beleeve that as the Word preached, ſo the Seals adminiſtred, according to the minde of Chriſt, in this they are the conduit pipes to carry the Spirit into the ſoules of men. But how? not alwayes, in all men, and at all times; but only when it pleaſeth the Lord to work by them. But as to the particular of Baptiſme, what that Ordinance doth conferre we will reſolve, in anſwering theſe ſeverall Quaeries.

Quaer. 1. What doth Baptiſme conferre to the pardon of Originall ſinne in Infants?

Anſw. It is certain all that are born in the ordinary way ſince the fall of Adam, are born in the guilt of Originall ſinne, Rom. 5.12.13, 14. Now this is the comfort to Beleevers, that in Chriſt the promiſed Seed there is pardon of this ſinne to their naturall Seed. Therefore if the Children of Beleevers dye before Baptiſme, there is hope of their Salvation by the Promiſe: But if they dye after Baptiſme, the hope is not only grounded upon the Promiſe, but it is alſo ratifyed by the Seal. Therefore the Infants that dye unbaptized, the hope of their Salvation is by Promiſe; but the baptized Infants of beleevers have hope of Salvation both by Promiſe and by Seal. Thus far (as I conceive) Baptiſme doth conferre to the pardon of Originall ſin in Infants.

Quaer. 2. What doth Baptiſme conferre to the pardon of Actuall ſinne in men of ripe years?

Anſw. It is a ſure rule, that Baptiſme doth not only Seal the pardon of Originall, but alſo the pardon of Actuall ſinne, Ananias ſaid to Paul, Why tarrieſt thou? ariſe and be baptized, and waſh away thy ſinnes, calling upon the name of the Lord. Act. 22.16. So then, if the perſon baptized p. 20continue after Baptiſme in clenſing and purging out of ſinne, in judging and condemning himſelf daily for ſin, he may be fully aſſured that the Lord will continue a daily pardon of ſinne. As ſinne is daily confeſſed, ſo it ſhall be daily pardoned upon true confeſſion. If any doubt ſhould ariſe in the Conſcience concerning the continuation of pardon by the blood of Chriſt, whether the Lord would continue to pardon ſuch ſinne as is committed after juſtification, the Apoſtle ſaith; If we confeſſe our ſinnes, he is faithfull and juſt to forgive us our ſinnes, and to clenſe us from all unrighteouſneſſe. 1 Joh. 1.7, 8, 9. Why doth he ſay that he is faithfull and juſt to forgive ſinne? This doth imply that he hath ſomwhere bound himſelf by Promiſe to forgive ſin to them that truly repent. It is true, he hath bound himſelf to the Perſon baptized, at the time of Baptiſme to forgive and to pardon ſinne, ſo far forth as ſinne is repented of. The Perſon baptized may ſay, I am aſſured of this, I have had it Sealed to me fourty, fifty, ſixty years ago, at the time of my Baptiſme. Where the Conſcience doth make a queſtion, whether God will continue to pardon ſinne; the waſhing of Baptiſme doth Seal the aſſurance thereof.

Quaer. 3. What doth Baptiſme confer to the taking away of the pollution of Originall ſin in Infants?

Anſw. Though the Pelagians of old, and M^r. Everard, (pag. 127.) of late do ſtrongly diſpute, that Children have no naturall pollution derived from Adam; yet in this we cannot yeeld to them. It is plaine from the Scope of Scripture that aſſoone as men have a being, they have a polluted and a ſinfull being. In caſe therefore they die in infancie, how is this pollution done away? In this we leave them to the extraordinarie grace of God. He can clenſe them in an extraordinarie way whom he will not ſuffer to come in the ordinary way to Salvation. And this is all that we will ſay of that Queſtion.

Quaer. 4. What doth Baptiſme confer to the taking away of the pollution of Nature in men of ripe years?

Anſw. It is plaine by experience that all that are baptized, are not Regenerate: Therefore we cannot look upon Baptiſme, but only as on a Seal of Regeneration. Foraſmuch as the Lord for his part doth promiſe to give his Spirit to the Perſon baptized that he may be regenerated; The Perſon baptized for his part doth ſolemnly ingage himſelf, that he will look for the Spirit which the Lord hath promiſed to give, that ſo he may come to the inward waſhing. In this (as I conceive) the efficacy and the uſe of Baptiſme doth principally ſtand. It doth principally ſtand in the agreement betwixt God and the Beleever, the Lord for his part, p. 21in the firſt place, under his Seal, doth promiſe to give inward grace to the clenſing away of the pollution of Nature; and the partie baptized doth ſet to his Seal, that he will endeavour to clenſe and waſh, by the power and help of grace received. The reaſon that moveth me ſo to think, is this. When the Lord ſaith, Circumciſe the foreskin of your hearts, and be no more ſtiff-necked. Deut. 10.16. Here if you go ſtrictly to work, how could he require the circumciſing of the heart, as ſpirituall and ſupernaturall duty, how could he require this to be performed by weak and ſinfull men? To ſpeak truly, in all the time of that adminiſtration he did never require them to circumciſe the foreskin of their hearts by their own naturall ability; but he required them to look to the Promiſe ſealed to them in the outward Circumciſion of the fleſh. Becauſe he required them to circumciſe the foreskin of their heart in the word of Command, He doth ſay, I will circumciſe thine heart, and the heart of thy ſeed in the word of Promiſe, Deut. 30.6. And therefore the Pſalmist finding by experience that he was conceived in ſin, and born in iniquity, he did pray to the Lord, that he would create in him a clean heart, and renew within him a right Spirit, Pſal. 51.5, 10. In this he did but pray for the inward circumciſion of the heart, according to the word of Promiſe, to which he had already obliged and bound himſelf to look after in the time of his outward circumciſion. The like reaſon may be given of the times of the New-Teſtament, where the Lord doth command us to be renewed in the ſpirit of our mindes, to waſh, to clenſe our ſelves from all pollution of fleſh and ſpirit. In this caſe we are not to take it as though we had an inward power to waſh or clenſe our mindes, but we are to conſider when the Lord doth lay ſuch a Command upon us, it is in correſpondence and relation to the Promiſe ſealed in the Sacrament of Baptiſme. Becauſe he hath promiſed to give his Spirit inwardly to waſh and clenſe our Natures when we receive the outward waſhing, we for our parts do oblige and bind our ſelves, inwardly to waſh by and through the ſupply of his holy Spirit. Therefore, to ſhut up all, though Baptiſme doth not confer Regeneration; yet by that Ordinance the Lord doth bind himſelf to give his Spirit toward that inward Regeneration, ſo far forth as we do and ſhall endeavour to look after his Promiſe.

And thus far I have gone in clearing the Text from two great miſtakes. I do not plead from the words (except ye be born of Water and of the Spirit) an abſolute neceſſity of Baptiſme by the outward Element of Water, but only a conditionall. I do not plead that all who are outwardly baptized, are inwardly Regenerated: But that the Lord doth enter into Covenant with them to give his regenerating Spirit, ſo far forth as they look and p. 22wait 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 p. 23ſhall be ſaved, Mark 16.16. In theſe words no man doubteth but the Lord Chriſt doth point to the outward baptiſme by water, and in a ſort he doth ſay that this baptiſme is neceſſary to ſalvation. How then are the words to be expounded? We muſt take them in this ſence, that faith is more abſolutely neceſſary to ſalvation, yet in a ſort it is true, that baptiſme is neceſſary as the outward meane; Why elſe ſhould our Saviour ſay, He that beleeveth and is baptized ſhall be ſaved. We may in the preſent caſe give the ſame expoſition. According to the manifeſt courſe of divine diſpenſation, we come to ſalvation by the new birth, and in the ordinary way ſo farre as it may conveniently be had, the outward waſhing is a ſeale of the inward waſhing of the Spirit. Theſe and many more reaſons might be brought to prove that the outward Baptiſme is intended in the words, Except a man be borne of water and of the Spirit. But in ſo plaine a caſe theſe ſhall ſuffice. Now we come to prove the Precept.

Firſt, If it be granted that the outward elementary baptiſme is here intended, I think it will eaſily follow, in the conſcience of every beleeving parent, that there is a neceſſity lyeth upon him to bring his child to baptiſme. For if the Lord Chriſt that giveth ſalvation, doth require the outward baptiſme of Water, and the inward baptiſme of the Spirit, both theſe as the ordinary meane to ſalvation in ſuch a caſe for a parent that is mindful of the ſalvation of his infant, it is not for him curiouſly to diſpute, whether an Infant unbaptized may be ſaved? But it lyeth upon him to do that which is required, and ſo to avoid the danger. But let us more particularly inſiſt upon the Baptiſme of Infants, the word of command muſt neceſſarily be applyed, becauſe of the pollution of their natural birth. The ſcope of the text is chiefly concerning theſe three particulars.

Firſt, that all by nature are defiled with Original ſin:

Secondly, there is a neceſſity of the new birth.

Thirdly, the outward waſhing in baptiſme is a ſeale of the inward waſhing.

This being laid as a ground, that the Infant is borne in Original ſin, and that the outward baptiſme is a ſeale of the waſhing away of the pollution of ſin by the Spirit of Chriſt; upon ſuch a ſuppoſition I think we may not uſe many arguments to the beleeving parent, to bring his Infant to the waſhing of baptiſme. No man can be ignorant, where the diſeaſe is, there is a need of the remedy. And therefore when our Saviour doth preſſe a neceſſity of waſhing both by Water and the Spirit, he doth not urge this ſo immediatly in reference to actual ſinne, as in reference p. 24to birth-ſinne, and to the naturall pollution in which infants are born. The conſideration of the guilt, and the pollution of the birth-ſin, doth draw in the neceſſitie of Infant-Baptiſme. And therefore in the former ages of the Church we ſhall find all along that they that vnderſtood the vileneſſe of the naturall pollution, (as Auguſtin and others) they were more forward for baptiſme in infancie. On the other ſide, thoſe that thought infants to be free from all Originall pollution, as derived from Adam, (for of this Judgment were the Pelagians of old and Mr. Everard and his followers of late) they both were and now are moſt laxe and careleſſe in the performance of that dutie to their own children.

But if this will not convince, let it be conſidred in the feare of God, wherefore there was ſuch a ſtrict command given to the Jewes to circumciſe their infants in their diſpenſation. If the like reaſon doth hold that Infants have now one and the ſame need of the ſeal of the new-birth, vnderunder this laſt, aſwell as they had under their diſpenſation, why ſhould not parents now make the ſame conſcience to bring their children to the ſeal of regeneration or the new birth now as well as then.

That the Lord did ſo ſtrictly command circumciſion, and that the foreskin ſhould be cut off, by this the Jewiſh infant did declare, that the verie nature was defiled which he received by carnall generation from his parents, and which by generation he was like to traduce and conveigh unto his children. By this the Jewiſh infant did ſignifie the pollution of his naturall birth, and that he needed to have Originall corruption, or the uncircumciſion of the fleſh to be done away by the Spirit of Chriſt. Now is not the caſe all one with the Chriſtian Infants born in Originall ſin? have not they the ſame need of the waſhing of Regeneration, whereof the waſhing in Baptiſme is a Seal? The reaſon being the ſame, I know nothing to the contrary but that a Beleever in the laſt diſpenſation, may take theſe words (Except a man be born of Water and of the Spirit) as a Precept for Infant-Baptiſme.

Now that Circumciſion in the former, and Baptiſme in the latter diſpenſation, do point to one and the ſame thing, to the clenſing away of the pollution of the naturall birth by the Spirit of Chriſt, we have a clear teſtimony for this from Col. 2.11, 12, 13. In the words immediatly going before the Apoſtle did exhort them, beware leſt any man ſpoyle you through Philoſophy, &c. By Philoſophy we are not to underſtand the ſpurious and the baſtard kind, but he doth mean the beſt Ethicall Philoſophy in Ariſtotle or Plato when men put it in the place of a Chriſt. The principles of the beſt Philoſophy are theſe, That a man new born into the world is like a white ſheet of Paper; that he hath no Originall pollution; p. 25that he hath in him the ſeed of all morality; that he hath liberty of will; that the habite of vertue is attainable by the repetition of many acts. Theſe are the cheif elements of the beſt morall Philoſophy. Now the Apoſtle ſhoweth that theſe Rudiments of Philoſophy are moſt deſtructive to the faith of Chriſt. For the prime foundation of the Chriſtian faith, is contrarily to beleeve that all are defiled with Originall ſinne by the naturall birth, that there is no other way of clenſing but by the regenerating ſpirit of Chriſt. For the conſirmation of this he doth referre them to the firſt Rudiments of Baptiſme in this laſt, and of Circumciſion in the former diſpenſation. For circumciſion, he ſaith in effect, that the foreskin of the fleſh was cut off, to ſignifie the putting away of the uncircumciſion of the fleſh in the heart. Ye alſo are circumciſed with a Circumciſion made without hands, in putting off the body of the luſts of the fleſh by the circumciſion of Chriſt. And for Baptiſme he ſaith in effect, that they were douſed and waſhed in water, to ſignifie the waſhing and clenſing of the naturall birth by the regenerating ſpirit of Chriſt. Therefore Circumciſion and Baptiſme do both agree in this, that Infants are born in their naturall pollution, and that this pollution is only to be done away by the clenſing vertue of the holy Spirit. Therefore if any man demand of us a Precept for the Baptiſme of Infants; I cannot ſee but in a ſence it is true that the ſame neceſſity doth lie upon us to baptize our Infants born in Originall ſinne, as did upon them to circumciſe. For though we are not to follow the Jew in things peculiar to his own diſpenſation; yet thoſe actions that are done by him upon ſuch grounds that are of morall, perpetuall, and common concernment to one perſon aſwell as another, to one Church aſwell as another, in one age aſwell as another, none can deny theſe actions to be obligatory to all as a ſtanding Rule for after generations. Therefore ſeeing the birth in Originall ſinne, and the clenſing of nature by the Spirit of Chriſt, are of common concernment to the Jewiſh and to the Chriſtian Infants, there is a morality in it, that our Infants ſhould be made partakers of the Seal of Regeneration in Infancy as well as theirs. If the reaſon did not hold one and the ſame, ſomething might be ſaid to the contrary; But ſeeing that Infants are now born in Originall ſinne, and Baptiſme is now alſo the Seal of the new-Birth, I cannot ſee but the ſame neceſſity in ſubſtance, as upon them to Circumciſe, ſo it doth lie upon Beleevers now to baptize their infants. The neceſſity (ſo farre as I apprehend) doth lie couched in theſe words, Except ye be born of Water and of the Spirit: Therefore Infants, being involved in their naturall pollution, have now a need of the Seal of the new-Birth.

p. 26But if all this will not ſatisfie, I will come to the Original Promiſe in the inſtitution of circumciſion. The promiſe is contained in theſe words, I will be thy God, and the God of thy ſeed, Gen. 17.7. Here (I ſay) how could God be a God to Abraham and to his natural ſeed, ſeeing the ſeed of Abraham is no better by nature then the reſt of the loſt ſons of men? ſeeing the ſeed of Abraham muſt needs be brought forth in Original ſin, how could God be a God to ſuch a polluted ſeed, that had equally the pollution of the whole corrupted maſſe? The anſwer is plain, that he did never make this promiſe to Abraham and to his natural ſeed, but with a double proviſo; the firſt is, that they ſhould beleeve the grand promiſe of Chriſt, In thy ſeed ſhall all the families of the earth be bleſſed. Gen. 12.3 By the intervening or coming between of Chriſt the promiſed ſeed, Abraham was to look that God would be his God and the God of his natural ſeed. Secondly, when the Lord did promiſe to be his God, and the God of his ſeed, it was upon a condition that they would keep his Covenant, that they would confeſſe their natural pollution, and that by receiving the outward Circumciſion in the fleſh, they would binde and ingage themſelves and their children to look after the inward circumciſion of the heart, Gen. 18.9, 10, 11, 12. with Ezek 44.9. Deut. 10.16, & chap. 30.6. Jer. 4.4. Rom. 2.28. Upon theſe two conſiderations did the Lord promiſe to be a God to Abraham and to his natural ſeed. Now if we apply this to the New Teſtament, the promiſe is ſtill one and the ſame to Beleevers and their children as it was to Abraham and to his particular family; how elſe could this berightly ſaid, In thy ſeed ſhall all the families of the earth be bleſſed. Therefore God is a God to Beleevers, and to their natural children in the laſt, upon the ſame termes as he was to Beleevers and their children in the former diſpenſation: and the termes are theſe, Firſt, that they beleeve the general promiſe of Chriſt, In thy ſeed ſhall all the families of the earth be bleſſed, Acts 3.25, 26. By the intervening of this promiſe the bleſſing doth hold one and the ſame to all the beleeving families of the earth, as it did before to the particular family of Abraham. Secondly, the promiſe to beleevers and their children doth now hold upon theſe termes, that the parents by the outward waſhing in Baptiſme will ingage themſelves and their children to look after the inward waſhing, that ſo they may be cleanſed from the pollution of their natural birth. Upon theſe termes God is now a God to beleevers and their naturall ſeed, and upon theſe conſiderations there is now a neceſſity of precept to baptize beleevers and their children. And this I take to be vertually included in that general expreſſion, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, &c.

p. 27Thus I have gone through the three places of Scripture from which I did undertake to prove a precept for the baptiſme of infants in the New Teſtament. We have ſeen, firſt that the children are comprehended incluſively and collectively in the word (them) teach all Nations, baptizing them, Matth. 28. Secondly, we have declared that the children are contained in the word of command, be baptized every one of you, becauſe they are expreſſed in the word of promiſe, Act. 2, 38, 39. Thirdly, we have proved, becauſe infants are born in Originall ſinne, they have now the ſame need of the regenerating ſeal by outward waſhing, Except ye be born of water and of the Spirit. John. 3.5.

All theſe put together, plainly ſhow that there is a word of Command to ſatisfie the Conſcience; and though the Children are not named in letters and ſyllables, it is all one if they be contained in ſence. There be many things comprehended in a Command that are not literally declared. Take for example the Command Honour thy father and mother, there is more contained in this Precept then only to give honour to naturall Parents. So take the Command, Thou ſhalt do no murder; this doth reach further then the bare letter of the word. Even ſo in the Scriptures forealledged we have proved Infants to be vertually included in the word of Command, though they are not expreſſed in the formality of letters and ſyllables. But if you will ſay, the more literally and diſtinctly things are ſet down the more eaſily, we come to know and beleeve that theſe things are commanded us of God. This I did acknowledge to be true in a ſence; but yet it is as true, that things which the Lord doth require us to beleeve from the harmony of Scripture, are as binding to the Conſcience, as if they were ſet down in ſo many letters. Let us take for inſtance that Scripture, Act. 9.21. where it is ſaid, that Paul did confound the Jews dwelling at Damaſcus, proving out of the Scriptures that Jeſus was the Chriſt. Here I demand, how did he confound the Jews aforeſaid? For if he had been put upon it to bring any one particular Scripture out of the Old Teſtament, to prove in ſo many letters that Jeſus was the Chriſt, he could never have done it. Yet nevertheleſſe he is ſaid to confound the Jews by the harmony of Scripture, (foreign) by comparing one Scripture with another. Further, we do aſſuredly beleeve, that the Biſhop of Rome from that very time in which he was declared univerſall Head, from that very time he began to be the ſolemne Antichriſt ſpoken of in the Revelation. If a Papiſt ſhould ask how this is proved, we cannot prove it by letters and ſyllables; for the Biſhop of Rome is not once named in ſo many letters, in the whole Prophecie; but if you go to the Scope of Scripture, it may be p. 28proved that he is the Beast, that the univerſall Headſhip is the name of the Beaſt, the profeſſion of the Catholiciſme or univerſall headſhip is the mark of the Name: and this we can prove from the harmonie of the Prophecie. In a word, they that will beleeve nothing but what is expreſſed in ſo many letters and ſyllables, they will by the ſame reaſon raze out of the Bible the uſe of all typicall Scriptures in a manner. For in them for the moſt part the matter is expreſſed by dark figures, and expounded by Circumlocutions. And to theſe abſurdities will they be unavoidably deduced that do adhere ſo ſtrictly to letter and ſyllables. Now let us returne to the Baptiſme of Infants, and here we truſt we have made it appear from the harmonie of Scripture, but eſpecially from the places forealledged, that there is a word of Command for the Baptiſme of Children. And I would intreat the godly to do as the men of Berca ſometimes did, To examine the Scriptures whether theſe things be ſo or no. Having finiſhed the Poſitive part I come now to the Polemical, to ſhow what the argument was which I firſt gave to the Brethren of the ſeparation; as alſo to ſhow their ſeverall anſwers with my reſpective replyes.

For the argument which I left with them in writing at Earle-Shilton from Acts 2.38, 39. It is as followeth;

Be baptized every one of you, &c. Here muſt needs be a Command to baptize Father and Child, becauſe the Promiſe is to you and your children. The argument doth thus proceed; 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; 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 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 p. 29have 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. p. 30There 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 p. 31of extraordinary gifts, but in a poſitive ſenſe it pointed to the Covenant of grace, and was the very promiſe made to Abraham. The arguments which I did alledge were theſe.

Firſt, If the promiſe to you and your children be only and principally meant of extraordinary gifts, let any man ſhow what kind of comfort this would miniſter to men of a troubled ſpirit, that they ſhould ſpeak with divers kinds of languages? What a weak ſupport would this be, if this be all the comfort contained in the Promiſe? On the contrary, if you take the Promiſe for the Covenant of grace, for the ordinary word of promiſe concerning free remiſſion of ſinne by the blood of Chriſt, ſealed in the Sacrament of Baptiſme, there is nothing more proper then to comfort a languiſhing ſpirit by ſuch a Promiſe.

Secondly, if the Promiſe (to you and your children) be meant of extraordinary gifts, how will the parts of the Text agree with each other? The Apoſtle doth exhort them, be baptized every one of you in the name of the Lord Jeſus Chriſt for the remiſſion of ſinne: And then he giveth this reaſon, for the Promiſe is to you and your children. If therefore the Promiſe be meant only or principally of extraordinary gifts, then the Command, be baptized every one of you, will ſtand in immediate relation to ſuch a Promiſe. And ſo the matter will come to this iſſue, that all that are baptized, and particularly they that renounce their old to take up a new Baptiſme, they will have a promiſe made to them and to their children, to ſpeak with divers kinds of languages. On the other ſide, if the Promiſe be taken for the Promiſe of Chriſt, and for remiſſion of ſinne by his blood, in this caſe it will be eaſie to ſhew the connexion of the words. For what can be more aptly ſpoken then this, Be baptized every one of you in the name of the Lord Jeſus for the remiſſion of your particular ſinne; for the promiſe of the pardon of ſinne, by the blood of the Chriſt, doth belong to you and your children?

Thirdly, if the promiſe to you and your children be only meant of extraordinary gifts, how can the words of the Apoſtle be made good when he ſaith, to all that are afar off, to as many as the Lord our God ſhall call? Will any man avouch that to as many as the Lord our God ſhall call, the Promiſe ſhall be to them and their children to ſpeak with divers kinds of tongues? then the Promiſe will be to all the Saints from the comming of Chriſt to the end of the world, that they ſhall ſpeak with divers kinds of languages. On the other ſide let the Promiſe be taken for that promiſe made to Abraham, In thy ſeed ſhall all the families of the Earth be bleſſed, this Promiſe (at leaſt in the general priviledges, offers, tenders, and workings,) doth paſſe to all that do beleeve and their p. 32children, whether they be near, as beleevers of the Jews; or whether they be afar off, as beleevers of the Gentiles: the Promiſe doth paſſe to all as long as they are no worſe then Beleevers Children. Theſe were the reaſons that moved me to affirm that the Promiſe (to you and your children) could not be meant of extraordinary gifts. Firſt, this Promiſe alone could not comfort Peters hearers in their trouble. Secondly, it could not anſwer the word of Command, be baptized every one of you. Thirdly, it could not be ſaid to extend to as many as the Lord our God ſhall call. On the other ſide, if this be applyed to the Covenant of grace, all circumſtances will agree that the Promiſe is to Beleevers and their Children: And to this doth the Apoſtle referre the word of Command to Fathers and Children, bee baptized every one of you.

For the words, (Ye ſhall receive the holy Ghoſt) I confeſſe they are meant of extraordinary gifts, the appendant annexed to the primitive Baptiſme, which were peculiar to thoſe times of the Church only. For the Apoſtles having to do either with Gentiles, to bring them out of Paganiſme, or with Jews to bring them out of Judaiſme, theſe extraordinary gifts were given to men for their more abundant confirmation in that Faith which they were to receive. Acts 10.44, 45, 46. with Acts 11.15, 16. This I do willingly confeſſe; but when the Apoſtle ſaith, for the Promiſe is to you and your children, he doth point here to the grand fundamental Promiſe made to Abraham; In thy ſeed ſhall all the families of the Earth be bleſſed. His meaning, is that if theſe Jews, which had crucified Christ, would come in, and take him as the promiſed Seed, if they would take him as the Meſſiah, the Promiſe ſhould ſtill continue to them and to their natural ſeed aſwell as in the former diſpenſation. This is his meaning when he ſaith, for the promiſe is to you and your Children, and in relation to this Promiſe, did he exhort them to be baptized Father and Child. Thus far I went in the vindication of both propoſitions, and in reſtoring of the force of my argument againſt the firſt aſſault. On the third of Junne I delivered the ſubſtance of this reply into the hands of Mr. Everard; ſince that time he hath been known to me, and hath undertaken the matter. But to ſay the truth I received no anſwer from him till the fifth of September. Then I received a Paper, full fraught with ſcornfull language; and the next newes, (about three or four weekes after,) was that we had put his anſwer in print with a title prefixed, Baby Baptiſme routed. In this I take my ſelf to have none of the beſt uſage from him. Firſt, that he ſhould put the matter publickly. In print, when wee were onelyonly in a private way of inquirie. p. 33Secondly, that he ſhould give his pamphlet the title of Baby Baptiſme routed, before we came to the tryall. Thirdly, that he ſhould ſlight the maine body of my paper, with all the inforcements, and yet glory of a totall conqueſt, when of many parts he had ſcarce brought one to the incounter. For theſe reaſons I think he hath not delt well with me. Becauſe his Book was lately printed for WILLIAM LEARNER at the Blackmoor in Biſhopſ-gate ſtreet, and becauſe now it is in the hands of all men, I will forbear to inſert it. Only my reply to the cheif particulars of his anſwer, is as followeth.