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
of others Why else should he say suffer little children to come to me and forbid them not for of such is the Kingdome of Heaven Mat. 19 13. There were seventy souls that came with Jacob into Egypt What did they all come in person were there no children in the company The text is plain Every man came with his houshold Exod. 1.1 Even so among the three thousand that did gladly receive the word there might be many children in the company because the Parents as then the manner was might embrace the Gospel with their housholds But that there were children in that company together with the beleeving Parents I am moved so to judge from these reasons First The Apostle speaketh so universally be baptized every one of you this as I understand in a Covenant sense must needs be spoken to them and to their children Secondly The motive to receive Baptisme for the promise is to you and your children sheweth that the promise doth hold to beleevers and their children in the last aswell as in the two former exhibitions how else could it be the ground to baptize Thirdly It is said of these Beleevers that they did continue in breaking of bread from house to house vers 46. I cannot see how they could well do this from house to house how they could sell their goods and have all things in common but that the families and houses of Beleevers in those dayes must be accounted as belonging to the Church and so consequently the children must be admitted to the Seal Fourthly The generall practise of the Church going before which was ever when the parent was admitted the children had the Seal of admission Exod. 12.48 And shall we think in the first solemne administration of Baptisme that Peter did not follow the common use Fifthly The Apostle himself doth expound what the promise is to beleevers and their children In thy seed shall all the families or kindreds of the earth be blessed Act. 3.25 If all the families of the earth shall be blessed in Christ the promised Seed he doth say in sense that the blessing under the last dispensation shall universally be brought into all the beleeving families of the earth after that manner as it was formerly to the paticular familie of Abraham And do you think that the Apostle himself would not practise according to his own Principles Would he not receive beleeving parents and their children into Church fellowship in the time of the last dispensation after that manner as they were received in the time of the administration going before Sixthly In the small portion of the story of the Apostles now extant it is again and again repeated that such a one received the promise of the Christ and was baptized he and his houshold This moveth me to think that the three thousand soules that were baptized and added to the Church were beleevers and their children But Mr. Everard Let it only stand as probable whether or no there were children in that company This is that which I affirm from Peters words that the children of beleevers have a right to Baptisme both by the word of Promise and the word of Command And for your objection that the children cannot repent that they have not the first principle of profession I have shewed many examples that in a Covenant sense they may be said to repent and to professe in their beleeving parents It is my judgment if beleevers and their children be baptized they must before Baptisme make profession of repentance But how The parents in their own persons and the children vertually and inclusively in the parents that do undertake for them Now Sir I leave it to your own conscience and to all the world beside to judge what reason you had so to accuse me of tearing the words of Peter asunder the words be baptized every one of you from the words repent and You might have spared your accusations of felonie your instances of mangling the words of David The fool hath said in his heart there is no God Psal 14.1 and such like Scriptures You might have spared your Rhetoricall amplifications for I do hold that the children in a Covenant sense did repent and professe in their parents In saying be baptized every one of you Father and Child I have not torne the sentence neither have I taken the words that come after from the words going before repent and c. But now Sir having freed my self of that false and untrue imputation I come to turne that which you have said upon your own head Seeing you are so apt to accuse I would intreat you seriously to consider that which our Saviour spake sometime to the Pharisees when they asked him why do thy Disciples transgresse the tradition of the Elders for they wash not their hands when they eat bread His answer was why do you transgresse the Commandement of God through your traditions Mat. 15.2 3 4 5. In like manner when you condemne me for tearing asunder letters and syllables and such like trifles I may truly reply why do you tear asunder the Promise from the Command and the Command from the Promise of God and spoyle the Scope Union and necessary dependance of Peters words God hath said to Beleevers in the last and best exhibition ot the Covenant the promise is to you and your children And for their greater encouragement he doth exhort them Parents and Children to be baptized in relation to the same promise Now you to returne your own language home again do clip cut and pluck the children of Beleevers as it were by the ears out of the word of Command when they are plainly and expressely mentioned in the word of Promise And so by consequence in matter of Baptisme you make Gods word of Promise and Command of none effect through your traditions You are further pleased to liken me to a theevish Gleaner that draggeth out the corn by the ears and looseth the band of the sheaf pag. 4. lin 17. Sir if I have done as you say with the words of Peter if I have torne the foregoing from the following words then let me bear the blame with all pious men But I hope I have said enough to purge my self of that crime and if need shall so require much more may be said to the satifaction of any reasonable man On the contrary If every man had his own right the similitude doth more fitly appertain to you and to such as you are For if any man shall put the question to me How do you prove out of the words of Peter that beleevers children ought to he baptized I will answer the children ought to be baptized because these words for the promise is to you and your children do immediately follow the precept be baptized every one of you and are annexed as the ground of the precept If he shall say how do you prove that I will reply I prove it from the union of the Apostles words and
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
teach all Nations baptizing them c. I might bring more places to prove that the children together with their parents doe make a beleeving nation And for such also that shall say that the children cannot be members in the Gospel Church-state I might alledg the ensample of the Jewes at their call in the last times For according to the prophecies it is cleare as they have been cast out and their children so at their call they shall be received and their children in a glorious manner But these few instances may serve to parallel the Commission and to shew that the children are maintained in the word them teach all Nations baptizing them Now I come to instance the absurdities in case the Children be excluded Thirdly If beleevers children be not contained in the word them teach all Nations baptizing them these absurdities will ensue First whereas in the two former dispensations father and child entered into the Church together in this last best and most large edition of the Covenant the parents shall be taken in and the children shut ouâ— Secondly If the children be not contained in the word them teach all Nations baptizing them there will be a change in the extent of the Covenant as to the particular of infants and in respect of the subject the Lord Christ will varie from the usuall way of administring the seal and yet give no warning of so great a change Thirdly If the Children be not contained in the word them teach all Nations baptizing them what difference will there be between the children of such that professe the Christ come in the flesh and the Christians of Turks his absolute enemies For if we take it as granted that the children in the last dispensation have no right to Church priviledges nor to the seale let any shew the difference between the children of beleevers and the Children of out-casts of the Covenant If they differ not in inward graces nor in outward Priveledges in what then do they differ Fourthly If the children be not contained in the word them teach all Nations baptizing them what shall we say in speciall by those of the Jewish Nation that were brought to the faith by the preaching of the Apostles will it not necessarily follow that such as did beleeve and receive the Christ come in the flesh by their beleeving the promise in the last exhibition bring losse to their Children Will it not necessarily follow that the Children formerly Church members shall come to be spoyled of Church membership the Children formerly Sealed shall come to be devested of the Seal the Children formerly in the Covenant shall come to be expunged out of the Covenant And all these dammages will follow upon the Jew his beleeving the Christ come in the flesh Fifthly If the Children be not contained in the word them teach all Nations baptizing them what will become of the comfort of Beleevers in this last dispensation There is no true Beleever in these times but he doth look upon his Children as borne in Originall sin where is then His comfort His comfort is in the Covenant But what if the Children must not be baptized What if they have no right to the Seal of the Covenant Can he presume that they have a right to the Covenant it self and to Salvation by vertue of the Covenant Where there is no title to the Seal especially in such a dispensation where a Seal is annexed to the Covenant what title is there to the Covenant it self Sixthly If the Children be not contained in the word them teach all Nations baptizing them there will be a change in the heart of Christ by his last words he will exclude them from the Seal and Church-membership of whom he said in his former exhortations Suffer little Children to come to me and forbid them not for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven Matth. 19.14 These and many other absurdities may be alledged in case Infants be excluded from Baptisme Now then if this be so what will become of those ordinary speeches of the adverse partie We want a precept we have no word of Command from Christ c. To them I may reply that they make their case worse then it is they have a word of institution to baptize Parents and Children When our Saviour saith Teach all Nations baptizing them the Children living under the Christian education are inclusively contained in the word Them We have proved this First from the remarkable circumstances of the Text Secondly by comparing the Commission with other Scriptures Thirdly by shewing the absurdities in case the Children are not contained collectively with their Parents in the Word Them Teach all Nations baptizing them Now I proceed to answer some Objections Object 1. If they say that the Word ethne Nations being a newter cannot be substantive to autous Them a word of the Masculine gender Sol. They that shall so reason let them peruse the Originall in the Old and New Testament and they shall every where find this Enallage or change of Gender To let passe all that might be brought let them consider that one Scripture concerning the loosing of Satan to seduce the Nations And he shall go forth to deceive ethne the Nations that are in the four quarters of the Earth God and Magog to gather autous them together to battell And they went up in the bredth of the Earth and compassed the Camp of the Saints and the beloved City and fire came down from God out of Heaven and devoured autous them And the Devill that deceived autous them was cast into the lake of fire c. Rev. 20 vers 8.9 10. Now here it is plain that the word autous them is three times together set in relation to the word ethne nations From whence I gather in the sence of the Commission that the word autous them must by the like reason necessarily answer to the word ethne nations and this is the naturall construction of the words Object 2. Secondly If they shall object that then the Nations as Nations will be the lawfull subject of Baptisme Sol. Not so neither It will necessarily follow that the Nations as discipled as taught as beleeving as professing Nations in this sence will be the proper subjects of Baptisme All Nations as Nations since the breaking down of the partition wall have a generall interest in preaching the Gospel Mark 16.16 compared with Matth. 10. vers 5.6 but this generall interest doth not intitle to Baptisme All Nations have a right to the Gospel preached as Nations but they have a right only to Baptisme Parents and Children so farre forth as they are under discipling and teaching and do yeeld to discipling and teaching Object 3. Thirdly if they alledge that the Commission is to be expounded by that place Joh. 4.2 Jesus made and baptized more Disciples therefore a Disciple actually made is the only subject of Baptisme Sol. That such a one is the lawfull subject of Baptisme I do willingly
say be baptized every one of you is a word of Command to beleeving Parents and their Children but that I tear these words from the true sense and meaning of Peter this I deny For in a federall or covenant sense the children are said to repent in their Parents that do undertake for them And therefore if you will have the Text to be read according to Peters true meaning it must runne after this tenour Be baptized every one of you and your children for the promise is to you and your children According to this construction the children may be said to repent and Covenant with God in their Parents and the Parents may be said to Covenant for their Children If this be so you may easily discerne that the words be baptized every one of you are not plucked and torne from Repent and Now that the Children may be said to repent to professe to Covenant either with or in their Parents I can bring many proofs for the same out of Scripture If I can prove this I hope you will have no such cause to accuse me of felony of stealing the words be baptized every one of you from the words Repent and. You might have spared your paines to come after me with a printed Hu-an-cry as you call it thirteen weeks and three-dayes after the pretended theft was committed You do no lesse when you use these words pag. 5. lin 30. Mr. Stephens now I have finished my Hu-an-cry and it hath been so serviceable that you are catched with the words which you stole out of the pocket of that Text Act. 2.38 Sir this is a hard charge if you could prove it But to clear my self of this imputation I will prove that in a federall sense Children may be said to repent and Covenant in their Parents To begin with the example of the Children mentioned Deut. 29. because this is a plain and pregnant place I will draw it out more at length for your better information In these words note first a Covenant secondly the motives thirdly the Covenanters or the persons that did Covenant For the Covenant it is this that the people should chuse the Lord to be their God and that they should not turn from him to serve the gods of the nations And the Lord on his part did Covenant to choose the people for his people to performe the promise made to Abraham vers 9.12 13 17 18. This was the substance of the Covenant Secondly the motives to move them to Covenant because the Lord had delivered them out of Egypt with great signes and temptations he had led them through the Wildernesse fourty years their clothes waxed not old upon them nor the shoe waxed old upon their feet Besides he had fed them in an extraordinary manner he had given them drink out of the Rock and had delivered them out of the hands of mighty Kings These were the arguments to induce them to Covenant vers 2 3 4. c. Thirdly to come to the point we are upon let us consider the persons who they were that were Covenanters and they are expressed in these words Ye stand all of you this day before the Lord your God your Captaines of your Tribes your Elders your officers with all the men of Israel your little ones and your wives and the stranger that is in thy Camp from the hewer of thy wood to the drawer of thy water That thou shouldest enter into Covenant with the Lord thy God vers 10.11 12. From these words you may gather that Children may Covenant and that together with their Parents the Lord may look upon them as Covenanters If this be so pray tell me of what value your argument is when you say Repent and be baptized every one of you cannot be spoken to Father and Child You bind upon this that Children cannot repent because they have not the first principle of profession pag. 3. lin 32. Now pray Mr. Everard tell me plainly and sincerely what do you think of the little ones expressed in the Text Were they not Covenanters Had they not the first principle of profession If that be true which you say that little ones have not that first principle that they cannot professe Why did they then stand before the Lord before the Arke of the Testimony with the most publick and representative persons with the Elders of the Tribes to enter into Covenant If you shall alledge that this is an instance out of the Old Testament and then was the Church state of the Jews I do confesse as much but this doth not void the force of the reason For when you say that Children cannot Covenant that they have not the first principle of profession you do not reason only against the particular Children of this or that dispensation but against the children of any dispensation Therefore I say on the contrary if the children of Beleevers in the Jewish Church state may be said to Covenant there is nothing doth exclude but that Beleevers children in these last times may be said to professe repent Covenant and come into the Church together with their Parents Further let us look into the reason wherefore in that dispensation the Lord did so strictly and universally call upon all sorts to enter into Covenant The reason is expressed in these words Lest there should be among you any man or woman or familie or tribe whose heart turneth this day away from the Lord our God to go and serve other gods of these nations lest there should be among you a root that beareth wormwood or gall vers 18. The Lord did so strictly cal upon all yea upon little ones to enter into Covenant they and their Parents together that there should not be a branch or a root among them that might depart from the Lord. Now Sir do you think that it was to no purpose to engage the children because they had not as you say the first principle of profession Do you think that in processe of time these children might lawfully go after other gods without breach of Covenant and then plead what you alledge to wit that in their minority they could not bind themselves they had not the first principle of profession But to come to our own times there are as you know many Christian men carried prisoners into Turkie and when they are there they are strongly urged to deny the Faith and to turne Mahumetans In this case they dare not yeeld for fear of the breach of Covenant for fear of violating their promise made to the Lord Christ in their Baptisme In this exigency Sir I do desire to put the question to you whether this may be said to be breach of Covenant yea or no I do it the rather because in the Postscript of your Answer you jeer at Mr. Angel of Leicester for saying that witches after conviction say that the Devil perswaded them to deny their first Baptisme Therefore Sir I do put it upon you to answer
whether this be breach of Covenant yea or no. If that be true which you say that Infants can make no Covenant they can break no Covenant And therefore though it it be evil otherwise to deny Christ and to turne Turk to deny Christ and enter into confederacy with the Devil with you it can be no breach of Covenant in Baptisme at least For where no Covenant was ever made no Covenant can be broken If Infants cannot Covenant or professe in Infancie there is no reason to tye them to that where they wanted ability to engage But yet further to let it appear that children may Covenant in their Parents or if you will have it that father and child may Covenant together consider the practise of the Jewish Church in the dayes of Jehosophat When the children of Moab and the children of Ammon came against them to battel all Judah stood before the Lord with their little ones their wives and their children 2 Chro. 20.13 If any shall ask why did the little ones stand before the Lord if it be true as you say that they had not the first principle of profession The reason is clear the people of the Jews in those times having no strength of their own to deal against such a multitude they came to humble themselves and to pray for help by vertue of the Covenant and the Promise made to Abraham and his seed vers 7. This is the reason wherefore the Beleevers in that dispensation stood before the Lord they and their little ones It was to this end that he might see not only Covenanting Parents but also children in Covenant with him and that both together might implore help by vertue of the promise made to Abraham and to his seed These and many other examples might be brought to prove that children may repent professe Covenant in their Parents that do undertake for them and with them But least you might plead that these are extraordinary cases I will make it appear in all times of the Jewish Church state for two thousand years together from Abraham to Christ that the children did usually professe and covenant in their Parents that did undertake for them This is true in the naturall Jew but it is more clear in the Proselyte and his children When the Proselyte came in himself he could not be admitted unlesse he did actually repent and actually professe Faith in the promise in the time of that dispensation Exod. 12.48 2 Chro. 6.32 33. Ruth 1.16 You will say then why were the children admitted seeing they had not to use your words the first principle of profession It is clear that the children did professe in the Parents that did undertake for them Exod. 12.38 If this be true in the Proselyte and his children in all times of the Jewish Church why should not we judge the like of the children of such as were converted from Gentilisme or Judaisme in those first times of the Christian Church Why Mr. Everard should it be a thing incredible with you when Peter said Repent and be baptized why should it be so strange a thing to say the children did repent and beleeve in their parents that did undertake for them or with them Now that it may more clearly appear I will further prove it that children may repent and professe in their Parents I will clear it from the Text it self for when Peter exhorted his hearers to repent the sinne they should repent of was their crucifying the Lord of life As therefore the nation of the Jews by crucifying of Christ and by rejecting of the Gospel as by this act of the Parents the children were cast off So when it shall please the Lord to open their eyes to see that sinne to mourne over it then the children shall come in and together with their Parents shall repent of that national sinne of crucifying the Messiah For proof of this let that Text be considered I will pouer upon the house of David and the inhabitants of Hierusalem the spirit of grace and supplications and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced In that day there shall be a great mourning in Hierusalem as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon And the land shall mourne every familie apart c. Zach. 12.10 11 12. This Scripture is to be applyed to the call of the Jews for the Prophet speaketh of the Spirit of grace that shall be poured upon that people in the latter times and when the whole nation should look to him whom they have peirced and should mourn for it But the question is when that nation shall be called to repent of their sinne in the last times under the Gospel Church-State Shall not the children be said nationally to repent in and with their Parents If you shall deny it then show me First how the body of the nation may be brought to the Faith Secondly how will you salve the words of the Prophet which saith plainly every familie shall mourn apart and their wives apart If they shall mourn family by family the mourning shall be of fathers that see their sinne with their children Thirdly If the children have been cast away many hundred years for their parents sin and with their parents shall we not think at the time of their call that the children shall repent of this sinne and come in at the time of the comming in of the whole nation If this be true at the general call of the Jews as I think you cannot well deny then it must be true also in those that did repent at the hearing of Peters Sermon For the three thousand that did then beleeve repent and come into the Church were but a pattern of that future call of the Jews that shall be in the latter times And therefore if it be true in the general conversion of that nation when the parents repent and mourn for their sin of crucifying the Christ that the children may be said to repent in their Parents I do not see but it may be some way true also in the partiall conversion at Peters Sermon When the parents did mourn for their sinne of crucifying the Lord of glory we can judge no other in a Covenant sense but that the children did mourn in them and with them And therefore for the three thousand that were added to the Church the whole company of souls that were baptized they were no other but beleeving parents and their children But if you shall reply that there were no children in that company because it is said that they who gladly received the word were baptized vers 41. I answer as before though the children could not gladly receive the word in their own persons yet they might gladly receive it in the persons of them that did undertake for them In a strict sense little children cannot be said to come to Christ yet our Saviour doth expound it as though they came themselves when they were brought in the armes
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