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
acknowledge that I have received two answers the one upon the first of May and the other upon the fifth of September And I could wish that the last Answerer which was one Mr. Robert Everard had not been so hastie to put his Answer in Print but rather that he and I had gone on in the way we were in to try the matter by writing each to other Sure I am by this friendly and private way of enquiry he and I might have gained very much at least the one might have come forth more ripe for the publick veiw What his secret reasons were I know not His way of life being itinerary from place to place it is a question whether such a narrow and set disquisition of truth would not have fixed him too long to one place Or whether according to the title of his book he did inwardly beleeve that he had given a totall rout to the Baptisme of Infants Or whether it were to ease his own shoulders of the burden and to call in more of the party to his assistance For my own part I beleeve the matter being now brought into Print I am not now to deal with this or that particular man but with the whole nation of them that are against a Precept for the Baptisme of Infants And this I take to be no small number For I beleeve the piety of former times as they then called it was not greater to set up high altars then it is now to divide into new Churches And therefore to a man who maketh it one of his cheif designes to set up a new Church to erect a new Ministery and to cast all into a new mould what better principle can he have to begin withall then a new Baptisme I do expect therefore when I go about to shew a Command for the Baptisme of Infants that I shall not want exceptions against me both from principles of conscience and from principles of interest However I am resolved being cast upon it to put the matter now by the Lords assistance unto publick triall One member of the disjunctive must needs be true either there is a Precept for the Baptisme of Infants or there is not For my part I beleeve there is and therefore I shall be the more willing to shew the grounds on which I build If any one be of opinion that the world is too full of books in this kinde and that little more can be said then hath been already I would intreat such a one to look upon the doubts that are in the Consciences of godly men every where and to consider the present necessities and divisions of the Church And I beleeve when he hath done so he will have small reason to complain of too much water seeing all is on fire For that speech of the wise man The thing that hath been it is that which shall be and there is no new thing under the Sunne Eccles 1.8 I acknowledge that there is a truth in it yet not as it is too ordinarily applyed For I can avouch by experience and I speak the words of truth and sobernesse that in many hidden Prophesies and in some subtill controversies when I have read all on both sides the truth hath not so clearly appeared unto me as when I came to canvasse the Scriptures to dive into the sense of them by meditation and to compare Scripture with Scripture This hath some way happened in the present controversie It may be then that which hath been to mine own may by the blessing of God be satisfactory to the conscience of another man Reader thou hast now the reasons that moved me to this work Thus desiring the help of thy prayers that the thing I labour in may tend both to the clearing of the truth and as much as may be in these times of division to the preserving of the peace of the Church I rest Thine in the Lord NATHANIEL STEPHENS Fennie Drayton Novemb. 19. 1650. The Generall heads contained in this Treatise HOw the Precept is proved from the words of the Commission Matth. 28.19 Teach all Nations baptizing them How the Children are comprehended under the word them pag. 1. How the Precept is proved from Acts 2.38 39. For the Promise is to you and to your Children Whether the Argument be of force the word of Promise is to Beleevers and their Children therefore the word of Command is to baptize Father and Child pag. 13 How the Precept is proved from John 3.5 Except a man be born of Water and of the Spirit c. Where it is shewed how far forth it is necessary for the Children of Beleevers which are borne in Originall sinne to receive Baptisme the seal of Regeneration pag 18 What the particular Argument was which the Author gave to the partie of the separation to prove a Precept for the Baptisme of Children pag. 28 What their first answer was to the argument ibid. How it was renewed again in both the parts and in the whole sense because the children of Beleevers have a right to Baptisme by the word of Promise they must have a right by the word of Command ibid. How it was particularly renewed in the first part by shewing the convertibility between the word of Promise and the word of Command in the Sacramental action pag. 29 How it was renewed in the second part by shewing that the Promise to Beleevers and their Children is not meant of extraordinary gifts but of the Covenant of grace pag. 30 What their second answer was to the argument forealledged pag. 31 How the argument is vindicated from the exceptions of Mr. Everard the Author of the last answer pag. 33 How it is shewed to be truly grounded upon the words of the Text. pag. 35 How it is evidenced to be right in the frame of it pag. 58 How the Children may be said to professe in their Parents that do undertake for them And therefore there is no danger of tearing the words be baptized every one of you Father and Child from the words Repent and be baptized pag. 36 How Mr. Everard by denyall of Infant-Baptisme doth tear the word of Promise from the word of Command pag. 43 Whether Peters hearers were true Beleevers when he exhorted them be baptized every one of you and so consequently whether their Children were capable of the Seal pag. 46 Of the maine Objection of Mr. Everard viz. Then the whole nation of the Jewes ought to be baptized because the Promise was made unto them and to their Children pag. 47 What the answer to this Objection is by shewing that not a right to the Promise in generall but a right that Beleevers and their Children have to the Promise in the last exhibition doth bring a right to baptisme ibid. What are the three exhibitions of the Promise and how in each exhibition the Promise doth still hold to Father and Child pag. 48 The question is resolved in speciall that a true Beleever of the heart
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
it in your own words pag. 14. Mr. Stephens That there is a Convertibility in Gods word whether it be in Promise or Command shall never by me be denyed therefore I shall not only grant it but maintain it Because all the words of God are sacred or holy and righteous altogether therefore I hope we differ not concerning the congruity of Gods Promises and Commands for doubtlesse there is an harmonie But here is the difference I deny that there is any word of Promise that ever God gave to baptize Beleevers Infants or any word of Command for that purpose For if there were a right by Promise or Command then we should grant that Children ought to have it But because there is no right neither by Promise nor Command therefore we deny the Infants of Beleevers Baptisme c. And thus farre you have spoken From these words of yours I gather that there is a convertibility between the word of Promise and the word of Command You say that you will not only grant it ☞ but also maintain it Sir What is this but in sense to yeeld the maine consequence of my Argument This is the force of my reason If the children of Beleevers have a right to be baptized by the word of Promise they must have a right to be baptized by the word of Command In this case seeing you deny not the convertibility between the Promise and Command of God you do in effect allow the consequence Therefore all the burden of the proof doth lye upon the assumtion Whether the children of Beleevers have a right to be baptized by the word of Promise If this can be proved we shall easily draw in the right of Baptisme by the word of Command in case the Premises be true The one by your own grant and the other by necessary consequence I hope then it is reasonable that I should carry the conclusion Seeing you speak of the sticking of the Chariot wheels that you cannot drive on nor many thousands to Infant-baptisme If you stick anywhere your must stick at the word of Promise Sir Your cheif businesse had been to overthrow the right that Beleevers children have to Baptisme by the word of Promise in the last exhibition thereof If you had done this you had performed the work in two cheif points First You had resolved me in point of conscience for I will assure you that which moves me to beleeve that these words be baptized every one of you are a Command to baptize Father and Child is the near relation that they have to the words that follow For the promise is to you and your children Because the Children are expressed in the word of Promise they are contained in the word of Command And for my part I dare not however you falsly accuse me tear asunder the Promise from the Command or the Command from the Promise in Peters words You know that there is a curse that belongs to them that do adde to or take from the word of God You your self have applyed it to them that do clip and cut and tear asunder the foregoing words of Peter from those that follow after Secondly Had you spent your force upon this Proposition to wit That the children of beleevers have a right to Baptisme by the word of Promise Had you taken this away you had taken away the word of Command As long therefore as this is a firme truth That the children have a right to be baptized by the word of Promise in its last and best exhibition I will ask you no beleef for the right to Baptisme by the word of Command The right to be baptized by the word of Command is the truth of the conclusion Now such a Logician you are to spend your whole answer in a manner upon the deny all of the Conclusion You insist much upon my tearing asunder the Command be baptized every one of you from the words Repent and be baptized If these words be torn asunder it is to hold correspondence with the words that follow For the promise is to you and your Children But Sir whatsoever you suggest to the contrary I trust I shall show that I do not tear these words asunder if you go to the right sense Further it is manifest from your own grants and concessions that the foregoing answer of your Brethren is of no value at all They deny a Convertibility between Gods word of Promise and his word of Command you allow it They hold the Promise to you and your children to be meant of extraordinary gifts and you say that one word in their vindication whether such a promise is principally intended yea or no. Thus you who are so earnest to deny the Baptisme of Infants and the use of the Church the world may see how well you agree among your selves But leaving that which may be gathered from your own grants and concessions I will now come to the points of difference as they lie in debate between us To begin therefore with your reasons by and through which you endeavour to prove that my argument is not rightly grounded on Peters words If I may be so bold with your Method that which you have said may be reduced to these five heads First You endeavour to show that I tear the words of Peter the words be baptized every one of you from the words Repent and Secondly You say that these words be baptized every one of you cannot be spoken to Infants as being not capable of such a command Thirdly You affirme that the Persons to whom Peter directed his speech were no Beleevers If the Parents themselves were no Beleevers their Children could not be the Children of Beleevers Fourthly You endeavour to show that seeing the promise to you and your children did belong to the whole Jewish nation why was not the whole nation baptized Fifthly Like a compassionate man you conclude with advice that I carrie my argument to some other Text seeing it can have no releef from Peters words This Sir setting aside your jeeres and mocks is the pith of your answer I shall therefore desire to bring the aforementioned particulars into question and to go along with you point by point To begin therefore with the first particular viz. my tearing asunder the words of Peter I do willingly agree that whosoever readeth the words of the Apostle he is not to pluck them out of joynt not to tear out the middle of the verse where the words have a necessary dependance I do agree in the generall truth with you that the foregoing words are not to be torn asunder from those that follow But whether this is done by you or by me let that now come to the tryall You stand upon it pag. 1. 2 3 4 5 6. that I do pluck asunder the words be baptized every one of you from the words repent and Sir if you go to words and syllables and to literall formes of expression I have said and do
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
did appertain to their own dispensation But I think that no sober man will say it was the dutie of the Prophets to call upon the people to beleeve the promise and to receive the seal of the promise in such and such a particular dispensation before the promise as such came to be revealed to them But to come a little more closely to you though the Prophets were righteous men and saved by Christ to come Heb. 11.39 40. Yet God never required them to go any further but to beleeve the Promise only and to receive the seal as exhibited and revealed in their own dispensation The words of the Apostle are clear and pregnant to this purpose Of which salvation saith he the Prophets have enquired and searched diligently who prophecied of the grace that should come unto you Vnto whom it was revealed not unto themselves but unto us they did minister this grace 1 Pet. 1.10 11. Nay further to come to the times of the manifestation of Christ in the flesh I say then the true beleevers of the two former dispensations who might have been saved by their faith in their own dispensation I say these very beleevers themselves could not be baptized till they had received the promise as set forth in the last times To come to particular examples we read when the Eunuch demanded of Philip Here is water what doth hinder me to be baptized Philip said if thou beleevest withall thine heart thou mayest Act. 8.36 37. From these words some gather that not a Disciple of the doctrine but a Disciple in a more strict sense a true beleever of the heart is the only subject of Baptisme Now for the clearing of this point I ask did not the Eunuch beleeve before the preaching of Philip If he were not a Proselyte how could a man of his employment be said to come from so remote a country to worship at Hierusalem Therefore it must needs be presumed that he was a true Beleever of the second dispensation But you will say what doth Philip mean when he useth these words If thou beleevest thou mayest The scope of Philip was not only to show the promised Messiah but particularly and individually to declare the Christ in the last exhibition of the promise Then Philip opened his mouth and began at that Scripture and preached to him Jesus vers 36. Hereupon the Eunuch beleeving not only a Messiah to come but also that Jesus was that particular Messiah and professing to beleeve this with all his heart he was baptized immediatly And if he had twenty children there present they had been capable of the seal of Baptisme Father and Child together To make this more clear we will go to the example of Lydia Of her it is said that the Lord opened her heart Act. 10.14 I ask then was that the first time of opening the hear of Lydia No she was a worshipper of God before The words of the text are plain Lydia a seller of purple of the City of Thyatira which worshipped God heard us She could not worship God but she must some way or other beleeve his Promise either in the first or the second exhibition thereof You will say then what is the meaning of the words The Lord opened her heart The meaning is this the Lord opened her heart to receive the promise in the third exhibition to beleeve the particular Christ that Paul preached And when she had done this she was baptized immediatly Now that it may appear to you that the promise doth appertain to Beleevers and their children in the last as in the two former dispensations she and all her houshold were baptized together Further what should be the reason that St. Paul should say to the Gaoler beleeve in the Lord and thou shalt be saved and thine house Acts 16.31 Why doth he speak of the salvation of the house upon the termes of the Gaolers beleeving but that the promise doth hold to beleevers and their children in the last exhibition thereof But if it be replyed That the Apostle spake the word of the Lord to all that were in the Gaolers house vers 32. He did so but how doth this prove that they had true faith wrought in their hearts They were all Pagans and Infidels over-night and the bare preaching of the word doth not make men beleevers as we see by experience Therefore we must conclude that the Gaoler himself only had an inward work and by a speciall evidence did receive the Christ come in the flesh hereupon he and all his servants and children as we may expound it were baptized immediately vers 33. And thus far Mr. Everard I have gone in answering your severall exceptions Now before I see how you conclude it shall not be amisse for me to adde two or three parallel Scriptures for the confirmation of the exposition which I have given If you stand upon the expression every one of you that the children cannot be intended in the Apostles words be baptized every one of you if your doubt doth lie here you may read such places of Scripture where the command is given to the Parent as to the head of the houshold both for himself and for his children Take for example those words in the institution of the passeover speak unto all the Congregation of Israel that they take every man a Lamb according to the house of their fathers a Lamb for an house And if the houshold be too little for the Lamb let him and his neighbour next to his house take it according to the number of soules every man according to his eating shall make his accompt for the Lamb. Exod. 12.3 4. Here in these words the Command is that every man take a Lamb that every man according to his eating make his accompt for the Lamb. By every man if you argue strictly is only meant every head of an houshold for the nation of Israel was divided into Tribes the Tribes into Families and the Families into Housholds and every Head is here commanded to take a Lamb. Now seeing the word of command is only to all heads of housholds will you say that the children and the houshold are not included If you will affirme this it is plain from the scope of the Text though the Command was laid upon the Parent or Head to provide yet the houshold were to eat the provisions of the Passeover So in the like case I say though the words be baptized every one of you be spoken to the Parents primarily and chiefly yet the Children are contained in the Command and the word of Command is given in a federal and Covenant sense for themselves and for their Children If you peruse the storie of the Acts of the Apostles you shall find that the truth of this was made good Such a one did beleeve and professe and was baptized he and his houshold Secondly If your doubt lie in this that the Children are not named in so many letters and syllables
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