Beleevers and their Children I hope now Mr. Everard your chariot wheels will not stick but you and the many thousands in this land which you speak of will now drive on to Infant Baptisme You have seen or at least you may see by all that which I have spoken that the Promise doth hold to beleevers and their Children in the last dispensation This is the scope of Peters words Now then if the Promise doth hold to the Children in the last dispensation this will draw in the word of Command to baptize Father and Child And for want of better friends you your self have told us for the convertibility of Gods word of Promise and his word of Command you will not only grant it but also maintaine it And this is my answer to all yours that came to me in Manuscript Now a word or two concerning your Postscript that came to me only in Print and here you thus admonish mee Is you have any thoughts left that incline you to sprinkle Infants declare it as soon as you will and I shall bee ready to take a veiw of it and give it entertainment answerable Sir The question between you and me is not concerning sprinkling or dipping this is but an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Logicians call it or a leading away from the point My purpose is to follow our businesse in hand to prove a Precept for the Baptisme of Infants When this is done there will be no great matter of difficulty concerning the manner of the thing I do yeeld that dipping is Baptisine but whether are they only baptized that are dipped Further you advise me that I pollute not the Scripture with Infant-Baptisme but confesse with the rest of my Brethren of the Clergie that disputed in Hardwick Steple-house that there is no command or example from Scripture for it For the rest of my Brethren though I know not some of the men and for others that I do know though I am not well acquainted with the passages between you and them yet if I might probably conjecture you have not dealt with them by your dealing with me Their words perhaps being taken in a right sense and it may be in their own meaning they do not stand contradictory to mine I do agree with them that there is a Precept impsicite and examples implicite for the Baptisme of Intants I do agree with those that say Children may professe in their Parents and with others also that hold the Baptisme of Infants by tradition for Lam verily perswaded with Augustine that there hath been a continued series of the Baptisme of Infants from the utmost antiquitie from the Aposties age to this very day I do agree with Mr. Angel of Leicester that the first Baptisme is of great moment and that a man cannot well make a compact with the Devil but he must renounce the Christ to which he hath obliged himself in Infant-Baptisme Thus Sir I have gone through your whole answer I have to the best of my understanding left out nothing of moment I would therefore intreat you in your next to do with me as I have done with you that is to go thorough the whole body of the Treatise not to catch at letters and syllables but to answer point by point in that which concerns the maine Before I go off I cannot but put you in mind of your scoffing way of writing in so grave and serious a matter What miseries are now in the Land What troubles are now in the Consciences of the godly And what fears are every where by reason of the breaches of the Church and yet you must have your mocks and jests at me If it were proper in those times of the troubles of the State to set up a Mercurius Britannicus against a Mercurius Aulicus I know no reason why in these times of the division of the Church it would not be every way as proper to set up a Mercurius Baptists against a Mercurius Catabaptists But in this Sir you are like to take your rest for me Untill some Mercurius Baptists doth arise you may injoy your veine It is enough that I have declared my conscience that there is a Precept for the Baptisme of Infants in the New Testament And it is my comfort also that I have delivered it in a manner some way convenient to the dignity of such a cause For the rest I leave you to Master Swayne The Answer of William Swayne Preacher of the word at Withibrook near Coventry to the late Postscript annexed to Mr. Everards book intituled Baby-Baptisme routed With a discovery of his practise and principles with others of his judgment HAving met with a printed paper intituled Baby-Baptisme routed at the close of which is annexed a Postscript in which the Author Mr. Everard doth advise Mr. Stephens not to pollute the Scripture with Infant-Baptisme but rather with his Brethren who disputed in Hardwick Steeple-house confesse there is no example or precept for it in Scripture For Mr. Stephens his polluting of the Scriptures with Infant-Baptisme that lieth to be proved But sure I am Mr. Everard and his partie did pollute the Sabbath and in polluting the Sabbath did pollute the Scriptures in putting his book against Mr. Stephens to sale in the Congregation at Withibrook on the Lords day contrary to a late Act of Parliament By and through which they did dishonour God affront the present Government forfeit their goods and grieve the poor Heathens for so they call us to see them so to profane the Lords day For the Brethren of the Clergie in Hardwick Steeple-house as he pleaseth to call them that they should say that there was neither Precept or Example for the Baptisme of Infants in the New Testament In this he doth them manifest in jurie For I as being one that there was present do affirme the Contrary And to use Mr. Everards own words to Mr. Stephens he like a theevish Gleaner draggeth out the Ministers words by the ears from their fellowes For this was the expression we confesse that we have no expresse command or example but we have both implicitely and sound argument for it These words were spoken by Mr. Potter Minister of Radford one of the Ministers that did conferre with Mr. Everard The truth of this the Notaries the whole Congregations and I think his own conscience can witnesse He goeth on in these words Or as Mr. John Moore Minister of West-leak and East-leak being demanded by what authority he did it Answered by Tradition resusing to give any Scripture for it And Mr. Angel of Leicester denying Tradition saith that Witches after their conviction say the Devill perswaded them to deny their first Baptisme Ergo it was good otherwise he would not perswade them from it Mr. Wilson Minister of Seagrave differs from them all affirming that Repentance is required before Baptisme and being demanded how Infants could be capable of Baptisme he affirmed they ought to repent before they were borne The
acknowledge but that he is the only subject of Baptisme to the excluding of Infants under the Christian education this I deny And I know no reason why we should tye up the sence of the Commission a law to continue in all ages to that particular instance of our Saviours making and baptizing Disciples in those first times Give me leave to proceed in the like manner and see whether by the rigor of some examples in appearance at least I may not be able to break the force of any generall rule Therefore let us take it as a granted maxime that a Disciple outwardly professing that every such a one is the lawfull subject of Baptisme In such a case as this is what if a man would be peevish against Disciple-baptisme might he not find out many colourable showes What if he should say that such as are able to speak with divers languages by the extraordinary gift of the Holy Ghost such only ought to be baptized Will he not have a fair plea from the example of Cornelius and his company They were not baptized till the Holy Ghost fell upon them Act. 10.44 45 46 47. Again what if he should say that a Minister at the entrance of his function that he is the only subject of Baptisme Was not our Saviour baptized at 30 years of age at the beginning of his Ministery Further what if he should affirme that they that have tasted of the spirit of bondage ought only to be baptized Did not Ananias baptize Paul after great horrors And were not the body of the people baptized by John in Jordan confessing their sinnes Last of all what if he should stand upon it that only a beleever of the heart can be baptized How plausibly may he reason from the speech of Philip to the Eunuch What doth hinder me to be Baptized If thou beleevest with all thine heart thou mayest Act. 8.36 37. So then if you take 500 Disciples of the Doctrine in ordinary experience you will scarce find 50 that have a true faith in the heart By the strictness of this Rule not only Infants but the greater part of Disciples that make outward profession must needs be excluded from Baptisme For of the greater part that make outward profession who can rationally or probably or in the judgment of Charity at least by their fruits conceive that the greater part have a true faith wrought in the heart And thus you see how Disciple baptisme which the Separation themselves allow is torne down by the precisenesse and rigour of particular examples I say then that there lyeth a truth in all the forenamed examples there lyeth a particular truth that men so and so qualified were the lawfull subjects of Baptisme but it doth not prove them to be the adequate and full subjects of Baptisme He that doth beleeve in the heart with a true faith may lawfully be baptized but we must not say that a true justifying faith is necessarily required to the administration of Baptisme So in the present case when our Saviour first made and then baptized Disciples in the first plantation of the faith there is no doubt but he did lawfully baptize such as made actuall profession But the Question is in the severall successions of the Church when Religion is once planted whether such actuall profession is necessarily required in all them that are baptized In this case I say the Apostles and their successors having the whole of the Nations to bring to the faith they must needs carry on the work by degrees by the joynt acts of teaching and baptizing In this sence teaching must needs go before baptizing when the Gospel is to be planted and baptizing before teaching after the first plantation And so both acts teach baptizing and baptize teaching are to continue together in fluxe and succession in all Christian Nations to the end of the World Therefore when our Saviour gave forth the Commission teach all Nations baptizing them we are not to think that he did look only to the time being but to the continuation of a Christian progenie and posterity upon the Earth If this be so a Discipled Nation is the lawfull subject of Baptisme and the beleeving Father in the sence of the Commission is to be baptized with his Child But seeing they that dissent from us are so willing to expound the Commission by parallel Scriptures I am content to apply my self to that method And therefore when the Prophets all along speak of the call of the Gentiles and of the bringing in of the body of the Nations I would know the time when these Prophecies did begin to be fulfilled They that dissent from us must needs say at that time when our Saviour bid his Disciples go teach all Nations baptizing them they must needs say at that particular time he did begin to put the forementioned Promises and Prophecies in execution If this be so we cannot imagine when he said teach all Nations baptizing them that his meaning was to gather a few Disciples out of all Nations by teaching and baptizing This might have been done in two or three of a Nation only without the bringing in of the body of the Nations But the words of the Commission containe a Promise a swell as a Precept for our Saviour doth promise that the body of the Nations first or last should be brought to the faith and this we find more particularly declared in the whole book of the Revelation and verified in our own experience From all that hath been said we gather that not only all Disciples so made by actuall Teaching but all Nations so far forth as they are under Discipling and Teaching and so far forth as they submit themselves to be discipled and taught they and their Children living under the Christian education are a Discipled Nation and in the sence of the Commission the lawfull subject of Baptisme Object 4. Fourthly If it be demanded what certain rule can be given to know a Discipled Nation Sol. There is nothing more easie to know then the publike profession of a Nation We may easily discerne how far forth they do acknowledge the Christ come in the flesh how far forth they look to have remission of sinne by his blood how far forth they are willing to have their Children brought up in the Faith These things are in the publike veiw of men and therefore as of old in one Nation of the Jews when the Fathers were made proselites by teaching there was a command in that dispensation to circumcise Father and Child as members of a discipled Nation So in the Church gathered out of all Nations as the Parents do now receive the Faith and do enter into Covenant to professe the Christ come in the flesh so far they and theirs must go under the account of a discipled Nation And for the evidence of this to the administrator of Baptisme they may be known to be such by the badg of their outward profession But
yet neverthelesse for a more clear understanding of things and the taking away of doubts that may arise let us distinguish between a Nation under Paganisme and a Nation where Christian Religion is set up in the throne If you speak of a Nation under Paganisme we may say that such a Nation is so far discipled as any part of it doth submit to the Faith As for example when Paul came to Rome to preach the Gospel by his preaching he did not make the whole people of Rome a discipled people But they were so far forth made a discipled Nation as any particular men in that City did beleeve and did engage themselves to bring up all under their education in the faith of the Christ come in the flesh so far they became a discipled Nation and no further And this is the reason wherefore in those first times we read only of the Baptisme of Beleevers and their housholds because then the Christian education was only in the houses of the Faithfull the Roman Emperour being as yet but a step-father and an enemy to the Church Secondly If you consider a Nation so far forth as the Christian Faith is set up as the Religion of the State in this sence we take a discipled Nation in a larger extent For not only the families of those that truly beleeve but the families of others also that are willing to yeeld to the Christian education and to live under the tuition of a godly Magistracy in the Common-wealth and the instruction of a powerfull Ministery in the Church so far forth as they are willing to be guided by the Lawes and the Government of the Church of Christ and are no worse so far they must go under the notion of a discipled Nation and Parents and Children both be the lawfull subject of Baptisme If this be not so let any man shew a reason why God should tye his grace only to the Children of those that truly beleeve when the Children of others also are willing to live under the shadow of his Ordinances and therein to wait for the in-coming and influence of his grace In Abrahams family not only they that were borne in his house but they that were bought with his money were esteemed to belong to that education Gen. 17.12 17. If any shall say that this was the time of the Jewish Church state to take in all under that Government He that doth so reason let him shew the meaning of the Spirit in the Revelation when he speaketh of the reign of Christ upon the Earth ch 20. and of the Kingdoms of this world that they became the Kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ ch 11. ver 15.17 What is the meaning of this but that the Kingdoms of this world being before the Kingdomes of the Beast and yeelding subjection to his universall Headship they became the Kingdomes of Christ to live in subjection under the Gospel as the Regent Law By all that hath been spoken a discipled Nation may be known by their subjection to the Gospel at least by their outward profession of the Faith to which they do submit I have stayed the longer upon this point by reason of a Question that was put to me when I was at Earle-shilton For being there and insisting upon the Baptisme of Beleevers and their Children and that from the words of Peter Act. 2.38 39. a Question was then put to me in these words By what right do you baptize the Children in your Parish do you take all your Parishioners for true Beleevers My Answer then was and now is That I do baptize them as branches of a discipled Nation For seeing the Parents do outwardly professe the Christ come in the flesh and because they are willing that I should teach their Children the principles of the Faith upon this consideration I do baptize the Children aforesaid So far as I understand I have a word of command for it The Children being contained in the word them teach all Nations baptizing them Now whereas some godly People in these times impute the evils among us to Infant-baptisme in this they are deceived it is for want of a Discipline to hold us unto that which we do professe Let any man take away a Coercive-government out of a Common-wealth a Discipline from an Army a Rod out of a Schoole and then let him see whether he may not count as many disorders in those wayes as now he doth see in Parish-Churches To say the truth we have had never an Excommunication at least none rightly used and this hath been a great cause of the evill in the Parochiall-Church-way in which now we stand Therefore if things be out of order among us as indeed they are I do willingly confesse that this doth arise from the want of a Discipline to make a separation between the Precious and the Vile It doth arise from want of diligent Catechising of Children according to the strict trusts of their Baptisme when they were first admitted It doth arise from the want of a powerfull and spirituall Ministery as formerly in greater measure so now also in too too many places It doth arise also from the want of Communion of Saints to carry on the work of grace in one anothers heart These are the causes of disorder by which all the rest is put out of frame They then that impute these mischiefes to Infant-baptisme they do impose upon us with a Sophisme they put that for the cause which is not the cause That this may appeear let us take it as granted That a Disciple able to make outward profession in his own Person is the only subject of Baptisme I say then by their own rule the Masters of Division cannot deny Baptisme to a Child of eight or ten years old when he is able to repeat the principles of the Faith If they deny it to such a one they must deny Baptisme to a Disciple and what is this but to crosse their own-principles Again if they admit such a one to outward Baptisme as admit him they must what true difference is there between such a one and an Infant of three dayes old especially such an Infant whose Parents will faithfully promise and ingage for his education For my part I am not acute enough to see a difference at least such a difference that men should demolish Parishes overturne Foundations tear Churches and Congregations in peices disturb the peace of the Church and the Common-wealth and set all on fire as I apprehend for bables and trifles I have done with the first place I come now to the most speciall Scripture to prove the Baptisme of Infants from the promise made to Beleevers and their Children The second Scripture to prove a precept is from the words of Peter in the first solemne administration of Baptisme Act. 2.38 39. Now that this may be more fully understood I will take the liberty to open the Text in a plain and familiar way by question
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. Thus 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 proved 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
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
A PRECEPT FOR THE Baptisme OF INFANTS Out of the NEW TESTAMENT Where the Matter is First proved from three severall Scriptures that there is such a word of Command Secondly it is vindicated as from the exceptions of the Separation so in special from the Cavils of Mr. Robert Everard in a late Treatise of his intituled Baby-Baptisme routed By NATHANIEL STEPHENS Minister of the Gospel at Fennie-Drayton in Leicester-shire London Printed by T.R. and E.M. for Edmund Paxton Nathanaell Webb and William Grantham and are to be sold in Pauls Chaine neer Doctors Commons and at the Greyhound in Pauls Church-yard 1651. Imprimatur Edm. Calamy January 13. 1650. Christian and Conscientious Reader THough Presses in the present age are much oppressed and many fools will be medling that they may be fools in Print Yet we think this Treatise should have much wrong and so should Christian Infants if it should be concealed from publick veiw For this we hope may muzzle their mouthes who have long cryed out give us a Precept for Infant-Baptisme If such do not winke here they may see it And if their wits be not quicker to devise shifts then their consciences to receive truth here we conceive is satisfaction sufficient For Mr. Everards Pasquill no nick-name for such sheets of Satyrical invectives how can it but be nauseous to all sober minds If a truth should be so disguised it would look unlovely how much more his error Which error of his is so abundantly refuted by this sober and judicious tract which makes the way so clear for little Children to come to Christs Baptisme as they did to his armes and blessing that unlesse their adversaries blush to recant and repent as the Emperor Heraclius did when the Heresie of the Monothelites with which he was tainted was condemned they will henceforth wash those children with teares which they have craftily and cruelly kept from Baptismal washing To returne to this Book we apprehend that the substance and argumentative part of it doth sincerely and soundly hold forth the truth and that in the evidence or power of the spirit of truth If there be now and then redundance of words let it be looked upon as the Authors affection to make the matter clear to the meanest judgments And glad we are that in this reply to Baby-Baptisme routed the Reverend Author hath followed the Apostles rule 1 Pet. 3.9 and not rendred rayling for rayling We can be confident that as it savours much of the Spirit of God so it will have the more influence upon the spirits of Gods people Our own experience hath found this in our answering the challenge made us of disputation in this point four years since by Mr. Knollis and Mr. Kiffin Which challenge we received and answered may we speak it with modesty with moderation towards them from whom we received provocation enough And with what happie successe we can comfortably referre to those thousands who heard the dispute but chiefly to the happy standing fast of our own great people in this truth of Infant-Baptisme Though we confesse we daily fear the lot of other great places that seducers will creep in amongst us We have sometimes heard that our Antagonists at their returne gave thanks in their Congregations for the good successe of their long journey But if deservedly as to the point disputed we wonder then that we within a moneth sending them a copie of the disputations written by their own scribe Mr. Coppe and withall the Presse all this while keeping open doores they have not committed it to publick veiw and vote nor sent us their hands that we might do it according to Articles before the dispute What wrong they have done us and the truth by clancular and defective narratives of the businesse as we have cause to fear so we leave to their own bosomes to judge Reader let not this convenient digression tire thy patience in the perusall of this Reverend Authors work whose worth we already assure our selves will with much clearnesse appear to thee as it does to us and we doubt not will to those of his opposites who as Synesius Bishop of Cyrene his expression was had not rather lose their hearts then their conceits Now together with the book we are thine in the truth as it is in Jesus John Bryan Ministers of Coventry Obadiah Grew Ministers of Coventry The Epistle to the READER Courteous Reader BEfore I come to the discourse it self it shall not be unprofitable to shew the cause that first moved me to enterprise this businesse and the severall steps by which I have been carried on For the cause alas is too manifest many people among us and some of good hope have been drawen aside to follow the way of the separation Things standing thus I could not but as a private Christian by the band of love but more especially as a Minister of the word by relation of office I could not I say but rise and look after such neighbours and friends of mine who in my aprehension at least were as sheeep gone astray Therefore about the end of January last I took occasion to go to Earles-Shilton a neighbouring town in Leicester-shire where the Masters of Division have played their principall game My purpose was by conference with them to know the reasons of their departure from us When a competent number of that way were gathered together some pleaded errors in our Doctrine others corruptions in our Ministery and a third sort faulted our Churches constitution But in conclusion of that days discourse I found that the point which they did bind very much upon was this That there word was no word of command for the Baptisme of Infants in the New Testament I found that this principally moved them to renounce the old and to take up a new Baptisme to leave the old and to joyn themselves to a new Church Hereupon I told them that however others look to the ancient use of the Church in the Baptisme of Infants I was perswaded that there was a word of institution and had I time more fully to study the point I hoped I should make it appear They desired me to take time and our agreement was that before my next coming I should give them a weeks warning which I did accordingly and appointed the 27th of March for the particular day of our conference I desired that some of their more solid and principal men would be there for the tryal of truth and this I signified by letter a week before But when I came I did not find the men I looked for Whether they were absent on set purpose or whether there was a real cause of their absence I cannot tell Therefore I did publickly according to that light I had Preach a Precept for the Baptisme of Infants before the People and when I had done I did leave one brief Argument behind me in writing for the freinds of the separation to consider of Since that time I
that may be saved in his own dispensation cannot be capable of another Seal till be hath received the Promise in that particular exhibition to which the Seal is annexed pag. 50 The Appendix of Mr. Swayne in which he showeth that the Brethren of the Separation have neither precept nor example for their Baptisme for want of a true Administrator pag. 63 A PRECEPT for the Baptisme of Infants out of the New Testament THat this matter may be the more clearly understood I will first alledge those particular places of Scripture from whence the Precept is proved Secondly I will vindicate the argument which I gave to prove a Precept from the exceptions of the Brethren of the Separation and especially from the late Treatise of Master Everard For the places of Scripture there are three texts in the New Testament which as farre as I apprehend being rightly expounded and cleared will prove a Precept The first is Matth. 28.19 where our Saviour speaketh to his Apostles Go teach all Nations baptizing them c. He would have them now go to al Nations that were formerly outcasts of the Covenant and strangers from the Common-wealth of Israel Epbes 2. verse 11 17. He would have them go teach disciple and covenant all Nations in the Faith and when the Nations shall come to be discipled taught covenanted and brought so farre to own the faith of Christ come in the flesh then the commission is baptize the discipled Nations to wit the beleeving parents and the children so farre forth at least as they live under that education and tuition Now contrarily whereas many late Writers will have a Disciple able to make actuall profession in his own person the only subject of Baptisme They are to my understanding greatly deceived in this point For if the words of the text be literally truly and grammatically read not Nations onely nor Disciples onely but discipled Nations are the subject of Baptisme When our Saviour saith Teach all Nations baptizing them who are they that he doth mean by the word them doth he not mean the Nations the beleeving Nations the parents and their children If it had been his minde that his Apostles should baptize such onely as did actually beleeve and professe in their own persons and none of their children what could have been more easily said then this Go make Disciples out of all Nations and such persons that ye have made Disciples baptize them onely If this had been his meaning he could easily have exprest himself that persons so and so qualified are the onely subjects of Baptisme But seeing he saith Go teach all Nations baptizing them he doth look here to a progeny and to a posterity of beleevers he doth here look to the Nations so farre forth as they consist of beleeving parents and children under their education Seeing in the affirmative a discipled Nation is the subject of Baptisme in the negative a Nation not discipled is excluded from Baptisme Now if any man shall say where have you in the New Testament a Precept for the baptism of infants I will say In the words of the Commission If he shall reply that there is no mention made of children in that text My answer is though they be not expressed in so many letters and syllables yet they are contained in the word them When our Saviour saith Teach all nations baptizing them his meaning is to baptize them parents that professe in their own persons and their children so farre forth as they live under their Christian education Both together make a discipled Nation and both joyntly are the subject of Baptisme by the word of the Commission But that the children are contained in the word them Go teach all Nations baptizing them I prove thus First laying down the most remarkable circumstances of the commision Secondly by compating it with other places of the New Testament that have a near relation to it Thirdly by showing the absurdities that will follow in case the infants are not included where the Nation doth professe For the circumstances there are three remarkable and speciall ones that show the children to be contained in the word of Institution First when our Saviour saith Go teach all Nations there all Nations are set in immediate opposition to one Nation all Nations in Covenant to the particular Nation of the Jewes in Covenant And therefore as the particular Nation of the Jews had the Covenant and the Seale to admit them and their Infants into the Church in the time of their own dispensation So it is the minde of Christ in that sence of the Commission that when the Nations receive the faith they should have the Covenant and the Seale for themselves and their children in the time of the new dispensation If this be so that the opposition is between Nation and Nation all Nations and that particular Nation we may build upon it that in these words go teach all Nations Baptizing them the children are comprised in the word Nations but more particularly in the word them and are in the sence of the Commission together with their parents the proper subjects of Baptisme If this be not so what will become of the opposition betwixt all Nations in Covenant and that one Nation Secondly by the time when the Commission was given It was at that instant when circumcision ceased to be the Seale of admission into the Jewish Church after it had stood for two thousand yeers together At that very instant the Lord did appoint Baptisme as an initial Seal to come in the place of Circumcision to performe the same office in the Churches of the Gentiles as Circumcision did before in the particular Church of the Jewes So then if Circumcision as all do know was the door to let in Father and Child into the Jewish Church in all the time of that administration we can judge no other but that it was the minde of Christ in his Commission that his Apostles should teach all Nations and such of them as should receive the faith they should by Baptisme be let into the Church beleeving Parents and their Children after that manner as they were admitted in all the time of the administration going before Thirdly when our Saviour gave Commission to his Disciples Go teach all Nations the doctrine that he would have them teach was no other but the doctrine of the Gospel delivered unto Abraham in the nature of a Covenant The Scripture fore-seeing that God would justifie the Heathen through faith preached before the Gospel to Abraham saying in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed Gal. 3.8 being compared with Acts 3.24 25. Rom. 4.11 Ephes 2.11 12 13. If therfore it was the minde of Christ that through the Apostles preaching the blessing of the particular families of Abraham should be conveighed to all the beleeving families of the earth what can be more rational to conceive according to the Commission but that the Promise and the Seale
are to be applyed to the beleeving families of the earth to Father and Child as it was formerly to the particular family of Abraham The blessing must needs go from family to family from the particular family of Abraham in the times of Circumcision to all the beleeving families of the earth in the times of Baptisme So then the chief circumstances of the Commission being laid together First all Nations in Covenant standing in immediate opposition to one Nation of the Jewes Secondly the circumstance of time that Baptisme did precisely begin at that instant to be the Seale of admission into the Church gathered out of all Nations when Circumcision ceased Thirdly the substance of the doctrine by preaching the Gospel the Apostles were to bring the blessing of the particular family of Abraham into all the beleeving families of the earth All these circumstances laid together plainly prove that Baptisme is to be applyed to the Church gathered out of all Nations after the same manner respecting beleeving parents and their children as Circumcision was applyed to the particular Nation of the Jewes And therefore when our Saviour saith Go teach all Nations baptizing them c. we can conceive no other from the circumstances of the Commission but that by positive right and by the appointed will the children in a beleeving Nation together with their parents are comprehended in the word Them as the true and proper subject of Baptisme So then we have a word of command cleared from the Commission from the scope of the text and the principal circumstances do agree Let us now go to parallel-parallel-Scriptures Secondly if we compare parallel Scriptures in the New Testament we shall finde by comparing Scripture with Scripture that the children must needs be comprised in the word of the Commission For the particular Scriptures because they are so largely handled by the late Writers Mr. Cotion Mr. Marshal Mr. Blake and as I hear by some others lately come forth I shall spare my paines and referre the judicious Reader to their learned Treatises Only to the purpose in hand I desire to lay down this as a sure rule that from whatsoever text in the New Testament the Baptisme of Infants may be proved whether it be proved directly or indirectly mediately or immediately severally by one place or joyntly by comparing many places together which was soever it be proved the matter will come to this that if the children have a right they must be contained in the general command And therefore when our Saviour saith teach all Nations baptizing them we must needs suppose that he speaketh comprehensively that in the word them he doth include every person that hath a right to the Seale under the new dispensation And therefore if in any of the aforenamed Authors any one text will hold good for the Baptisme of Infants we may argue that Infants are contained in the head precept Let us come to give two or three instances The Apostle in that famous place speaking of the children of beleevers doth use these words The unbeleeving husband is sanctified by the wife and the unbeleeving wife is sanctified by the husband else were your children uncleane but now are they holy 1 Cor 7.14 Here the Apostle speaketh of the natural children of beleevers that they are holy I demand then in what sence doth he say they are holy It is agreed upon on all sides that it is not meant of inward holinesse because the children are said to be holy as being propagated from beleeving parents Therefore it must be one of these two wayes either by Covenant holinesse as we affirm or by legitimation of issue as the followers of the Separation But I say the text cannot possibly be understood in the latter sence for then why may not the children of Turks and Tartars be said to be holy seeing many of them are borne in lawfull wedlock Secondly if any text of Scripture may be found out where the children may be said to be holy because lawfully borne yet how can such a sence agree to the present text Here only is mention made of beleeving and unbeleeving parents of a clean or unclean issue as the parent is either beleeving or unbeleeving Upon these considerations when the Apostle saith that the children are holy this must needs be meant of federal and covenant holinesse He speaketh of the time Now are the children holy to wit in the last exhibition of the promise And therefore in the sence of the Commission when our Saviour saith teach all Nations baptizing them his command was to baptize the Corinthians children so farre forth as the parents did beleeve through grace In this sence because the parents did beleeve the progeny was holy as a part of a discipled Nation and according to the meaning of the Commission a lawfull subject of Baptisme The Corinthians children being federally holy must needs be contained in the word them teach all Nations baptizing them c. Secondly from the maine scope of Rom. 11. it is plaine that the Gentiles have now the same graffing into the Olive tree that the Jewes had before and that the present graffing in of the Gentile is answerable to the casting out of the Jew So then if when the Jew was graffed in he was graffed in and his children it will follow the Gentile being ingraffed in his place he must needs be graffed in and his children Again when the Jew was cast out he was cast out and his children and therefore when the Gentile was received in his roome be must be received and his children If this be not so where will be the analogie between the breaking off of one linage and the implantation of another the breaking off of some branches and the ingraffing in of others If the beleeving Gentile did not come in with his children in the place of the Jew cast out what shall we make of the whole sence of the chapter what shall become of the opposition between Nation and Nation To whom may the Apostle be said to direct his speech when he speaketh Thou art cut out of the Olive tree wild by nature Thou bearest not the root but the root thee He that spared not the naturall brunches take heed that he spare not thee Behold the severity of God but on thee goodnesse ver 17 18 19 20 21 22 24. Now who is this thou and thee to whom he doth so frequently speak It can be no other but the beleeving Gentile and his children opposed to the Jew cast out of covenant and his children If you apply this to the Commission Go teach all Nations baptizing them what can be more naturall to affirme then that the children with their beleeving parents make up a discipled nation and that both together are the lawfull subjects of baptisme In Rom. 11. the beleeving parents with their children are contained in the words them and thee and they are also comprised in the word them in the commission Go
This is the meaning of the text that the promise doth belong to the children of Beleevers whether Jewes or Gentiles whether in the second or in the third dispensation the promise doth belong to the children when the parents come to embrace the faith On this ground doth the Apostle urge the word of command to father and child be baptized every one of you and this I take to be the true meaning of the text Quest So you say but what sufficient reason can you bring to assure the conscience Answ That which doth much assure me is the Apostles own interpretation in the chapter following for there he showeth that the blessing in the particular family of Abraham shall be applyed to all the beleeving families kindreds and nations of the earth Acts 3.25 26. with Gal. 3.8 Gen. 12.3 Now what is this but that the promise shall be one and the same to them that beleeve among the Gentiles and their families as to them that did beleeve among the Jewes and their families He doth not speak onely of Beleevers in person but of Beleevers and their children why else doth he say concerning Christ the promised seed all the families shall be blessed in him Why else doth he use this expression But that the promise now in the last times is still one and the same to Beleevers and their families On this ground doth he build the word of command to the parents that did beleeve and to their children Be baptized every one of you Quest If this be the meaning of the command why is there no more frequent mention of the Baptisme of children in the New Testament Answ Because the Apostles after the giving forth of the commission had principally to deal with the Jewes to bring them out of Judaisme and with the Gentiles to bring them out of Gentilisme their work did lye especially in this For this cause we read more often of the Baptisme of such that did beleeve and professe in their own person Yet neverthelesse we find it again and again repeated in the story of the N. Testament that such and such a one beleeveth and was baptized he and his house So farre therefore as I can discern the ordinary baptizing of housholds in those dayes is a plain example to illustrate the word of command in the Apostles words to baptize beleevers and their children Quest For the baptisme of housholds though we do read this again and again repeated yet we are to understand it of such only that did make outward profession Answ True The Apostles did baptize such as did professe in their own persons yet they did baptize the housholds in relation to the fathers engagement For the proof of this I do offer these ensuing reasons First it was the general practise of the Church going before when the father did beleeve and professe he was received with his houshold Exod. 12.48 Therefore when the Apostles did baptize in the new Administration we can conceive no other but they did follow the common use in receiving the father that did beleeve with his children Secondly when they did preach the Gospel they did bring the blessing of Abraham into the beleeving families of the earth If they did this they must needs in the last dispensation apply the promise and the seale generally to all beleeving families of the earth in the same manner as formerly it was applyed to the particular family of Abraham Now what is this but to take in the professing parent with his children Thirdly in those times those that were brought out of Judaisme or Paganisme did at the time of their entrance into the Church make a solemne league and covenant with God to professe the faith they and their families Acts 16.14 1 Cor. 1.12 13 14. Ephes 6.4 Therefore when the Apostles did baptize the housholds of beleevers we cannot conceive that they did this only in relation to some persons that made actual profession but in relation to the fathers ingagement that did undertake for himself and for his children Fourthly they that say the Apostles did baptize the housholds and such in the housholds only as did actually beleeve and professe they that say this let them show a reason why the houshold of Lydia was baptized for we read only of her that the Lord opened her heart to beleeve the Christ If you will say that her family was baptized in relation to her undertaking then the reason will lye cleare in the text Lydia was judged faithful to the Lord and so was baptized she and her houshold Acts. 16.14 All these reasons put together plainly demonstrate the Apostolical practise to baptize beleevers housholds in relation to their undertaking for themselves and for their children If this be so there must needs be an example to answer the Apostolical precept Be baptized every one of you Father and Child for the Promise is to you and to your children And so from the words of Peter compared with the practise of other Apostles we have both a precept and an example for the Baptisme of Children in the New-Testament and as I think our task is done I come now to the third Scripture to prove the necessity of Infant-baptisme Thirdly In the conference with Nicodemus our Saviour doth insist much upon the pollution of the Naturall birth and the necessity of Regeneration both by Water without and the Spirit within Now in this Scripture there is included a Precept to Beleevers to apply the outward washing to their Children born in Originall sinne the Seal of the inward washing That this may bee made manifest I will First clear the Text from two ordinary mistakes Secondly from the words rightly expounded I will show how the precept is deduced by necessary consequence For the mistaks in the first place they do over shoot themselves that plead from hence an absolute necessitie of the Baptisme of infants Indeed there is an absolute necessitie that all that are borne in Originall sinne if they be saved they must be saved by the Covenant but there is not a like necessitie of the Seal In the times of the first dispensation to comfort Beleevers in respect of their Children born in Originall sinne the promise then was The seed of the woman shall break the Serpents head Gen. 3.15 Yet there was no Seal of this Promise no initiall Seal for two thousand years together from Adam to Abraham Further there was not such absolute necessity of the Seal in the times of Circumcision for those that died before the eight day There was then as now is an absolute necessity of Salvation by the Promise and the Covenant but the necessity of the Seal was only conditionall so far forth as it might be well had Therefore when the ancient Writers Fathers and Schoolmen speak so much of the necessity of Baptisme and of the Salvation of Infants strictly and precisely upon terms of Baptisme to my understanding they ascribe too much to the outward Ordinance and so
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
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
like arguments have Mr. Swan and Mr. Bosse So far Mr. Everard Here now if by Mr. Swan he intends me I am sure neither he nor his partie ever heard any such arguments from me for the baptizing of Infants and I am sure if he were put to it he cannot prove what he affirmes Therefore Reader take notice that Mr. Everard will not stick to Print falshoods for his advantage and glory and the plucking down and dishonouring the partie which he doth oppose That I do him no wrong observe these passages following He came to Withibrook Congregation with others of his partie of Esen-hall the sixth of October the day when they sold their books aforesaid thither they came to require satisfaction for he then said I had aspersed him At which time I offered him satisfaction if he came to deal with me as a Brother I urged his breach of our Saviours rule If thy Brother sinne against thee c. Mat. 18.15 He said he knew the Text and further he and others answered I was no Brother but an Heathen They also said All out of the Order they walked in were Heathens Against which I thus argue If all out of their order be Heathens then strangers to the Covenant of Promise having no hope without God in the world So is an Heathen defined Eph. 2.12 And if without God and without hope then without salvation and then indeed no true Church But doth Mr. Everard and his friends think that all out of their order are Heathens or did they not go against their light when they thus said If their conscience speak the same language that all are Pagans they must judge them so either because they are strangers from the Covenant of Promise or because they are not baptized after their manner If Heathens because strangers from the Covenant of Promise then no hope of salvation then a necessity of condemnation to all out of their order But if Heathens because not baptized after their manner then their Baptisme only will make Christians of Heathens and none can be saved without their Baptisme Secondly If they say all are Gentiles out of their order because the outward court is troden down by all those out of their order This will help nothing because it will follow upon their own principies that there was no outward Court nor Church ministeriall nor Ordinances to be troden down all along the times of Antichrists reigne For if all out of their order were and are Heathens then there were none but Heathens to be troden down and so Heathens must tread down Heathens except they will yeeld a Church visible and an outward Court And in so doing they lose their Cause Again If Heathens because not baptized after their manner and consequently no Church thea Mr. Everard and those of his judgment were no Church before they received this new Baptisme but they were Pagans aswell as others If they were no true Church their first Administrator was no true Administrator because there was no Church to conferre an office upon him Therefore they must say he had his first Commission immediatly from heaven unlesse they will affirme that Heathens have a power to make an Administrator of Baptisme Now this is contrary to the Scripture which saith they ordained Elders in every Church Acts 14.23 Therefore in the ordinary way the Church is before Elders or Administrators But if they shall say there was an Admimstrator before a Church as John Baptist and therefore by the like reason they may have such a one If they say this they must prove from the Prophets that the Gospel-Churches must have two Baptists be twice planted which supposeth to Gospel-Church in the world before the coming of the second Baptist to plant a new Church Further also they must say that there is a second Christ before whom the second Baptist must come as a forerunner And so new institutions and foundations of Ordinances Baptists Apostles Miracles and whither will not this conceit runne But if they say that the Commission Matth. 28.19 was their first Administrators rule then he must be a Disciple made by ordinary preaching and teaching before he had authority to Minister their new Baptisme whosoever he was And was he taught by some Heathen think they or by a Disciple By an Heathen they cannot say And if by a preaching Disciple then Christ had a Disciple before their new Baptisme Therefore they that want their new Baptisme cannot bee stated Heathens And how foule then was their assertion at Withibrook to call all Heathens out of their order And yet have neither command nor example in Scripture for their Baptisme in reference to their first Ministers Commission or authority And doth not this their practise come here to be condemned which continueth judging our Churches and all out of their order to be Heathens for want of their Baptisme Therefore let all tender-hearted Christians take heed how they are intangled in such a society and practise as will be a continuall condemning and judging of all out of their order though never so godly But if Mr. Everard and his friends are still of the same mind let them with tendernesse consider two things First upon what a poor foundation their Baptisme stands which must necessarily be upon an Heathenish foundation or upon extraordinary revelation The second thing I would intreat them to consider is how they both in judgment and practise continue condemning the generation of the just to hell at least all living and dead that are not of their society What not one Saint by calling in all England neither in Magistracy Ministery nor People that is not of themselves all strangers to God and his Christ Then surely there is no hope that any thing will be done for the Kingdom of Christ by such a Magistracy or Ministry Therefore let me intreat them not to be offended if I put a question to them What would they do with such an Heathen Magistracy Ministry or as one calleth them in his late book officiating Priests in case the power were wholly in their hands For the Ministry it is clear to all the world And for the Magistracy I leave it to his judgment For my part I fear it I do not intend in these lines the Moderate of those that dissent from me in point of Baptisme but Mr. Everard and those of his judgment and the rest that are so bitter against the godly of the Ministry From them I shall expect an answer in which they may do well to prove that their practise is grounded upon a Precept in reference to their first admiministrators authority to baptize And when it comes to my hands I shall consider it FINIS