A Precept for the Baptism of Infants, Precept · Argument
The Argument of Nathaniel Stephens Miniſter, for the Baptiſme of Beleevers Children, recruited and vindicated from the exceptions of Mr. Robert Everard in his book, intituled Baby-Baptiſme routed.
GOod Sir, ſince the arrivall of your anſwer I have taken it into conſideration, and ſo far as I apprenend, it may be conveniently divided into three parts.
Firſt, you endeavour to prove that my Argument hath no ground from the words of Peter.
Secondly, you would bear me in hand that the ſtructure of it is not good; and that the premiſes do not hold due proportion with the concluſion.
Thirdly, you do lay down terms of conſent, how far we agree; and terms of diſſent, how far we diſagree. And ſo state the Queſtion in the cloſe of all.
Sir, This is a ſtrange kind of method that hath been in part the cauſe of your Wilde Diſcourſe. Yet nevertheleſſe, as the courſe of the matter doth require, I will only take the liberty to lay down the ſtate of the Queſtion, as you your ſelf do expreſſe it in your own words. pag. 14.
Mr. Stephens, That there is a Convertibility in Gods word, whether it be in Promiſe or Command, ſhall never by me be denyed; therefore I ſhall not only grant it, but maintain it. Becauſe all the words of God are ſacred, or holy and righteous altogether: therefore I hope we differ not concerning the congruity of Gods Promiſes and Commands; for doubtleſſe there is an harmonie: But here is the difference, I deny that there is any word of Promiſe that ever God gave to baptize Beleevers Infants, or any word of Command for that purpoſe. For if there were a right by Promiſe or Command, then we ſhould grant that Children ought to have it. But becauſe there is no right, neither by Promiſe nor Command, therefore we deny the Infants of Beleevers Baptiſme, &c. And thus farre you have ſpoken.
From theſe words of yours I gather, that there is a convertibility between the word of Promiſe and the word of Command. You ſay, that you will not only grant it, ☞but alſo maintain it. Sir. What is this, but in ſenſe to yeeld the maine conſequence of my Argument? This is the force of my reaſon, If the children of Beleevers have a right to be baptized by the word of Promiſe, they muſt have a right to be baptized by the word of Command. In this caſe ſeeing you deny not the convertibility between the Promiſe and Command of God, you do in effect allow the conſequence. Therefore all the burden of the proof doth lye upon the aſſumtion, Whether the children of Beleevers have a right to be baptized by the word of Promiſe? If this can be proved, we ſhall eaſily draw in the right of Baptiſme by the word of Command, in caſe the Premiſes be true; The one by your own grant, and the other by neceſſary conſequence; I hope then it is reaſonable that I ſhould carry the concluſion. Seeing you ſpeak of the ſticking of the Chariot wheels, that you cannot drive on, nor many thouſands to Infant-baptiſme: If you ſtick anywhere, your muſt ſtick at the word of Promiſe. Sir, Your cheif buſineſſe had been to overthrow the right that Beleevers children have to Baptiſme by the word of Promiſe in the laſt exhibition thereof. If you had done this, you had performed the work in two cheif points.
Firſt, You had reſolved me in point of conſcience; for I will aſſure you, that which moves me to beleeve that theſe words (be baptized every one of you) are a Command to baptize Father and Child, is the near relation that they have to the words that follow; For the promiſe is to you and your children. Becauſe the Children are expreſſed in the word of Promiſe, they are contained in the word of Command. And for my part, I dare not (however you falſly accuſe me) tear aſunder the Promiſe from the Command, or the Command from the Promiſe in Peters words. You know that there is a curſe that belongs to them that do adde to or take from the word of God. You your ſelf have applyed it to them that do clip and cut, and tear aſunder the foregoing words of Peter from thoſe that follow after.
Secondly, Had you ſpent your force upon this Propoſition, to wit, That the children of beleevers have a right to Baptiſme by the word of Promiſe; Had you taken this away, you had taken away the word of Command. As long therefore as this is a firme truth, That the children have a right to be baptized by the word of Promiſe, in its laſt and beſt exhibition; I will ask you no beleef for the right to Baptiſme by the word of Command. The right to be baptized by the word of Command is the truth of the concluſion: Now ſuch a Logician you are to ſpend your whole anſwer in a manner upon the deny all of the Concluſion. You inſiſt much upon my tearing aſunder the Command, be baptized every one of you, from the words, Repent and — be baptized. If theſe words be torn aſunder, it is to hold correſpondence with the words that follow; For the promiſe is to you and your Children. But Sir (whatſoever you ſuggeſt to the contrary) I truſt I ſhall ſhow that I do not tear theſe words aſunder, if you go to the right ſenſe.
Further, it is manifeſt from your own grants and conceſſions, that the foregoing anſwer of your Brethren is of no value at all. They deny a Convertibility between Gods word of Promiſe, and his word of Command; you allow it: They hold the Promiſe (to you and your children) to be meant of extraordinary gifts, and you ſay that one word in their vindication, whether ſuch a promiſe is principally intended, yea or no. Thus, you who are ſo earneſt to deny the Baptiſme of Infants, and the uſe of the Church, the world may ſee how well you agree among your ſelves.
But leaving that which may be gathered from your own grants and conceſſions, I will now come to the points of difference as they lie in debate between us. To begin therefore with your reaſons, by and through which you endeavour to prove that my argument is not rightly grounded on Peters words. If I may be ſo bold with your Method, that which you have ſaid, may be reduced to theſe five heads.
Firſt, You endeavour to ſhow that I tear the words of Peter; the words be baptized every one of you from the words Repent and—.
Secondly, You ſay that theſe words be baptized every one of you, cannot be ſpoken to Infants, as being not capable of ſuch a command.
Thirdly, You affirme that the Perſons to whom Peter directed his ſpeech, were no Beleevers. If the Parents themſelves were no Beleevers, their Children could not be the Children of Beleevers.
Fourthly, You endeavour to ſhow that ſeeing the promiſe to you and your children, did belong to the whole Jewiſh nation, why was not the whole nation baptized?
Fifthly, Like a compaſſionate man, you conclude with advice, that I carrie my argument to ſome other Text, ſeeing it can have no releef from Peters words. This Sir, (ſetting aſide your jeeres and mocks) is the pith of your anſwer. I ſhall therefore deſire to bring the aforementioned particulars into queſtion, and to go along with you point by point.
To begin therefore with the firſt particular, viz. my tearing aſunder the words of Peter, I do willingly agree, that whoſoever readeth the words of the Apoſtle, he is not to pluck them out of joynt, not to tear out the middle of the verſe where the words have a neceſſary dependance. I do agree in the generall truth with you, that the foregoing words are not to be torn aſunder from thoſe that follow. But whether this is done by you or by me, let that now come to the tryall. You ſtand upon it (pag. 1. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.) that I do pluck aſunder the words, be baptized every one of you from the words repent and— Sir, if you go to words and ſyllables, and to literall formes of expreſſion, I have ſaid, and do ſay, be baptized every one of you, is a word of Command to beleeving Parents and their Children; but that I tear theſe words from the true ſenſe and meaning of Peter, this I deny. For in a federall or covenant ſenſe, the children are ſaid to repent in their Parents that do undertake for them. And therefore if you will have the Text to be read according to Peters true meaning, it muſt runne after this tenour; Be baptized every one of you [and your children,] for the promiſe is to you and your children. According to this conſtruction the children may be ſaid to repent, and Covenant with God in their Parents, and the Parents may be ſaid to Covenant for their Children. If this be ſo, you may eaſily diſcerne, that the words (be baptized every one of you) are not plucked and torne from Repent and—
Now that the Children may be ſaid to repent, to profeſſe, to Covenant, either with or in their Parents, I can bring many proofs for the ſame out of Scripture. If I can prove this, I hope you will have no ſuch cauſe to accuſe me of felony, of ſtealing the words be baptized every one of you, from the words Repent and.— You might have ſpared your paines to come after me with a printed Hu-an-cry (as you call it) thirteen weeks and three-dayes after the pretended theft was committed. You do no leſſe when you uſe theſe words (pag. 5. lin 30.) Mr. Stephens, now I have finiſhed my Hu-an-cry, and it hath been ſo ſerviceable, that you are catched with the words which you ſtole out of the pocket of that Text, Act. 2.38. Sir, this is a hard charge if you could prove it. But to clear my ſelf of this imputation, I will prove, that in a federall ſenſe, Children may be ſaid to repent and Covenant in their Parents.
To begin with the example of the Children mentioned Deut. 29. becauſe this is a plain and pregnant place, I will draw it out more at length for your better information. In theſe words note firſt a Covenant; ſecondly the motives, thirdly the Covenanters, or the perſons that did Covenant.
For the Covenant, it is this, that the people ſhould chuſe the Lord to be their God, and that they ſhould not turn from him to ſerve the gods of the nations. And the Lord on his part did Covenant to chooſe the people for his people, to performe the promiſe made to Abraham, verſ. 9.12, 13, 17, 18. This was the ſubſtance of the Covenant. Secondly, the motives to move them to Covenant, becauſe the Lord had delivered them out of Egypt with great ſignes and temptations, he had led them through the Wilderneſſe fourty years, their clothes waxed not old upon them, nor the ſhoe waxed old upon their feet. Beſides, he had fed them in an extraordinary manner, he had given them drink out of the Rock, and had delivered them out of the hands of mighty Kings. Theſe were the arguments to induce them to Covenant. verſ. 2, 3, 4. &c. Thirdly, (to come to the point we are upon) let us conſider the perſons who they were that were Covenanters, and they are expreſſed in theſe words: Ye ſtand all of you this day before the Lord your God, your Captaines of your Tribes, your Elders, your officers, with all the men of Iſrael, [your little ones,] and your wives, and the ſtranger that is in thy Camp, from the hewer of thy wood to the drawer of thy water: That thou ſhouldeſt enter into Covenant with the Lord thy God. verſ. 10.11, 12. From theſe words you may gather, that Children may Covenant, and that together with their Parents the Lord may look upon them as Covenanters. If this be ſo, pray tell me of what value your argument is, when you ſay, (Repent and be baptized every one of you) cannot be ſpoken to Father and Child. You bind upon this, that Children cannot repent, becauſe they have not the firſt principle of profeſſion, (pag. 3. lin 32.) Now pray, Mr. Everard, tell me plainly and ſincerely, what do you think of the little ones expreſſed in the Text? Were they not Covenanters? Had they not the firſt principle of profeſſion? If that be true which you ſay, that little ones have not that firſt principle, that they cannot profeſſe; Why did they then ſtand before the Lord, before the Arke of the Teſtimony, with the moſt publick and repreſentative perſons, with the Elders of the Tribes to enter into Covenant? If you ſhall alledge, that this is an inſtance out of the Old Teſtament, and then was the Church ſtate of the Jews: I do confeſſe as much; but this doth not void the force of the reaſon. For when you ſay that Children cannot Covenant, that they have not the firſt principle of profeſſion, you do not reaſon only againſt the particular Children of this or that diſpenſation, but againſt the children of any diſpenſation. Therefore I ſay on the contrary, if the children of Beleevers in the Jewiſh Church ſtate may be ſaid to Covenant, there is nothing doth exclude but that Beleevers children in theſe laſt times may be ſaid to profeſſe, repent, Covenant, and come into the Church together with their Parents.
Further, let us look into the reaſon wherefore in that diſpenſation the Lord did ſo ſtrictly and univerſally call upon all ſorts to enter into Covenant. The reaſon is expreſſed in theſe words, Leſt there ſhould be among you any man, or woman, or familie, or tribe, whoſe heart turneth this day away from the Lord our God, to go and ſerve other gods of theſe nations: leſt there ſhould be among you a root that beareth wormwood or gall. verſ. 18. The Lord did ſo ſtrictly cal upon all, yea upon little ones, to enter into Covenant, they and their Parents together, that there ſhould not be a branch or a root among them that might depart from the Lord. Now Sir, do you think that it was to no purpoſe to engage the children, becauſe they had not (as you ſay) the firſt principle of profeſſion? Do you think that in proceſſe of time theſe children might lawfully go after other gods without breach of Covenant, and then plead what you alledge; to wit, that in their minority they could not bind themſelves, they had not the firſt principle of profeſſion? But to come to our own times; there are (as you know) many Chriſtian men carried priſoners into Turkie, and when they are there, they are ſtrongly urged to deny the Faith, and to turne Mahumetans. In this caſe they dare not yeeld for fear of the breach of Covenant, for fear of violating their promiſe made to the Lord Chriſt in their Baptiſme. In this exigency, Sir, I do deſire to put the queſtion to you, whether this may be ſaid to be breach of Covenant, yea or no? I do it the rather, becauſe in the Poſtſcript of your Anſwer, you jeer at Mr. Angel of Leiceſter, for ſaying, that witches after conviction ſay that the Devil perſwaded them to deny their firſt Baptiſme. Therefore Sir, I do put it upon you to anſwer 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 of others. Why elſe ſhould he ſay, ſuffer little children (to come to me) and forbid them not, for of ſuch is the Kingdome of Heaven? Mat. 19 13. There were ſeventy ſouls that came with Jacob into Egypt: What did they all come in perſon? were there no children in the company? The text is plain, Every man came with his houſhold. Exod. 1.1. Even ſo among the three thouſand that did gladly receive the word, there might be many children in the company, becauſe the Parents (as then the manner was) might embrace the Goſpel with their houſholds. But that there were children in that company, together with the beleeving Parents, I am moved ſo to judge from theſe reaſons.
Firſt, The Apoſtle ſpeaketh ſo univerſally, be baptized every one of you; this (as I underſtand) in a Covenant ſenſe muſt needs be ſpoken, to them and to their children.
Secondly, The motive to receive Baptiſme, (for the promiſe is to you and your children) ſheweth that the promiſe doth hold to beleevers and their children in the laſt aſwell as in the two former exhibitions: how elſe could it be the ground to baptize?
Thirdly, It is ſaid of theſe Beleevers, that they did continue in breaking of bread from houſe to houſe, verſ. 46. I cannot ſee how they could well do this, from houſe to houſe, how they could ſell their goods and have all things in common; but that the families and houſes of Beleevers in thoſe dayes muſt be accounted as belonging to the Church; and ſo conſequently the children muſt be admitted to the Seal.
Fourthly, The generall practiſe of the Church going before, which was, ever when the parent was admitted, the children had the Seal of admiſſion. Exod. 12.48. And ſhall we think in the firſt ſolemne adminiſtration of Baptiſme, that Peter did not follow the common uſe?
Fifthly, The Apoſtle himſelf doth expound what the promiſe is, to beleevers and their children, In thy ſeed ſhall all the families or kindreds of the earth be bleſſed. Act. 3.25. If all the families of the earth ſhall be bleſſed in Chriſt, the promiſed Seed, he doth ſay in ſenſe, that the bleſſing under the laſt diſpenſation ſhall univerſally be brought into all the beleeving families of the earth after that manner as it was formerly to the paticular familie of Abraham. And do you think, that the Apoſtle himſelf would not practiſe according to his own Principles? Would he not receive beleeving parents and their children into Church fellowſhip in the time of the laſt diſpenſation, after that manner as they were received in the time of the adminiſtration going before?
Sixthly, In the ſmall portion of the ſtory of the Apoſtles now extant, it is again and again repeated, that ſuch a one received the promiſe of the Chriſt, and was baptized, he and his houſhold. This moveth me to think that the three thouſand ſoules that were baptized and added to the Church, were beleevers and their children.
But, Mr. Everard, Let it only ſtand as probable, whether or no there were children in that company. This is that which I affirm from Peters words, that the children of beleevers have a right to Baptiſme, both by the word of Promiſe, and the word of Command. And for your objection, that the children cannot repent, that they have not the firſt principle of profeſſion, I have ſhewed many examples that in a Covenant ſenſe they may be ſaid to repent and to profeſſe in their beleeving parents. It is my judgment, if beleevers and their children be baptized, they muſt before Baptiſme make profeſſion of repentance. But how? The parents in their own perſons, and the children vertually and incluſively in the parents that do undertake for them. Now, Sir, I leave it to your own conſcience, and to all the world beſide, to judge what reaſon you had ſo to accuſe me of tearing the words of Peter aſunder, the words be baptized every one of you, from the words repent and—. You might have ſpared your accuſations of felonie, your inſtances of mangling the words of David, The fool hath ſaid in his heart there is no God. Pſal. 14.1. and ſuch like Scriptures. You might have ſpared your Rhetoricall amplifications; for I do hold that the children in a Covenant ſenſe did repent and profeſſe in their parents. In ſaying, be baptized every one of you, Father and Child, I have not torne the ſentence, neither have I taken the words that come after, from the words going before, repent and— &c.
But now, Sir, having freed my ſelf of that falſe and untrue imputation, I come to turne that which you have ſaid upon your own head. Seeing you are ſo apt to accuſe, I would intreat you ſeriouſly to conſider that which our Saviour ſpake ſometime to the Phariſees, when they asked him why do thy Diſciples tranſgreſſe the tradition of the Elders, for they waſh not their hands when they eat bread; His anſwer was, why do you tranſgreſſe the Commandement of God through your traditions? Mat. 15.2, 3, 4, 5. In like manner when you condemne me for tearing aſunder letters and ſyllables and ſuch like trifles, I may truly reply; why do you tear aſunder the Promiſe from the Command, and the Command from the Promiſe of God; and ſpoyle the Scope, Union, and neceſſary dependance of Peters words? God hath ſaid to Beleevers in the laſt and beſt exhibition ot the Covenant, the promiſe is to you and your children: And for their greater encouragement he doth exhort them, Parents and Children to be baptized in relation to the ſame promiſe, Now you (to returne your own language home again) do clip, cut, and pluck the children of Beleevers as it were by the ears out of the word of Command, when they are plainly and expreſſely mentioned in the word of Promiſe: And ſo by conſequence in matter of Baptiſme, you make Gods word of Promiſe and Command of none effect through your traditions. You are further pleaſed to liken me to a theeviſh Gleaner that draggeth out the corn by the ears, and looſeth the band of the ſheaf, (pag. 4. lin. 17.) Sir, if I have done (as you ſay) with the words of Peter, if I have torne the foregoing from the following words, then let me bear the blame with all pious men. But I hope I have ſaid enough to purge my ſelf of that crime; and if need ſhall ſo require, much more may be ſaid to the ſatifaction of any reaſonable man. On the contrary, If every man had his own right, the ſimilitude doth more fitly appertain to you, and to ſuch as you are. For if any man ſhall put the queſtion to me; How do you prove out of the words of Peter that beleevers children ought to he baptized? I will anſwer, the children ought to be baptized, becauſe theſe words for the promiſe is to you and your children, do immediately follow the precept be baptized every one of you, and are annexed as the ground of the precept. If he ſhall ſay, how do you prove that? I will reply, I prove it from the union of the Apoſtles words, and eſpecially from the word (For) which as a band doth unite and couple the two parts of the Text together. He exhorteth them firſt, be baptized every one of you; and then uſeth this motive, for the promiſe is to you and your children. Now on the other ſide, if your aſſertion be true, that the words be baptized every one of you, cannot be ſpoken to Father and Child; how will this anſwer to the motive, For the promiſe is to you and your children? And what will become of the word (For), the band or the connexive particle, that knits the parts of the ſentence together? Sir, By this time you may underſtand who the man is that may be likned to a theeviſh Gleaner, that doth dragge out St. Peters words by the eares, and doth ſpoile the union of the ſentence. I will conclude with your own words, (pag. 5. lin. 22) Sir, I deſire you to take heed that place do not fall upon your head, Rev. 22.18. for I teſtify unto every man that heareth the words of the Prophecy of this book, If any man ſhall take away from the words of the book of this Prophecie, God ſhall take away his part out of the book of Life, and out of the holy City, and from the things which are written in this book. I come now briefly to your other particulars.
Secondly, You ſay that theſe words, be baptized every one of you, were ſpoken to the ſame You which the Apoſtle directed his ſpeech unto, and you never read of any Command given to Infants; but on the contrary, Deut. 11.2. (pag. 6. lin. 15.) I anſwer, theſe words were mediatly, and ſecondarily ſpoken to the children, though they were primarily and immediatly directed to the Parents that did engage for them. In the inſtitution of circumciſion, the Lord ſaith, This is my Covenant which you ſhall keep betwixt me and you, and thy ſeed after thee; every manchild among you ſhall be circumciſed, and ye ſhall circumciſe the fleſh of the foreskin, and it ſhall be a token of the Covenant betwixt me and you. And the uncircumciſed manchild, whoſe fleſh of his foreskin is not circumciſed, he ſhall be cut off from his people, he hath broken my Covenant. Gen. 17.10, 11, 14. Here in theſe words the Command is principally and explicitely given to the Parents; yet ſo as it is ſecondarily and incluſively ſpoken to the children that do enter into Covenant, either in or with their Parents. If this be not a truth, how can it be ſaid, the uncircumciſed man-child ſhall be cut off from his people, he hath broken my Covenant? If he may be cut off from his people for breach of Covenant, he may be ſuppoſed to Covenant, and the Lord may look upon him in the notion of a Covenanter. Whereas you ſay, you never read of any Command given to Infants, but on the contrary, Deut. 11.2. I pray you let us read the Text, And I know you this day; for I ſpeak not with your children which have not known, and which have not ſeen the chaſtiſement of the Lord your God, his greatneſſe, his mighty hand, and his ſtretched out arme, and his miracles, and his acts which he did in the midſt of Egypt, &c. Here I demand, ſhall we abſolutely conclude, that God did not ſpeak at all to the children of theſe parents who only were eye-witneſſes of his miracles done in Egypt? Surely then we muſt conclude, that all the exhortation in Moſes his law, did concerne the Parents only that were then alive, and not the children in after generations. Doth not this gloſſe croſſe the whole ſcope of Scripture? Do we not read everywhere that the Parents were to teach their children, and that the children were to remember the wonders and miracles which the Lord had done in Egypt? For the Text, the ſcope of it is this, Moſes doth more ſpecially exhort them that were alive to love the Lord their God, to keep his charge and his ſtatutes, verſ. 1. becauſe their eyes had ſeen all the great acts which he had done. verſ. 7. Now, Sir, Whereas it is ſaid that the Lord did not ſpeak to the children, you cannot conclude this abſolutely, that he did not ſpeak to them at all, but only reſpectively, in that particular ſenſe. Now, what is this but a fallacy as Logicians terme it, à dicto ſecundum quid ad dictum ſimpliciter? But ſuppoſing that theſe words could not be ſpoken to the children, you go on and enquire whether they were ſpoken to the Apoſtles: when you ſay to me (pag. 6. lin. 23.) But happily you conceive that in theſe words a Commiſſion was given to the Apoſtles to baptize Father and Child; but (be baptized every one of you) cannot help you there neither: For if theſe had been words ſpoken to the Apostles, then the Apoſtles had been commanded to repent and be baptized. Such a dexterity you have to make difficulties where none be. Therefore to the clearing of this matter from this miſt which you would purpoſely caſt over it, you are to note, in the adminiſtration of Baptiſme there is the adminiſtrator, and the perſon baptizing; and there is the ſubject and perſon baptized. Now I ſay the Command doth extend to both, it doth extend to the Adminiſtrator to miniſter Baptiſme from the Commiſſion of Chriſt; and it doth appertain to Beleevers to receive Baptiſme, they and the children under their education when they come to profeſſe the Christ come in the fleſh. In caſe the Parents neglect the bringing of their children to Baptiſme, they do in ſenſe omit the publick profeſſion of the Faith, a conſiderable part of which is to engage themſelves and thoſe that live under their education to the Lord Chriſt. But now to the third point.
Thirdly, You ſay it is a great miſtake to judge theſe Jews to whom Peter ſpake to be Beleevers; they are your own words. If there were no beleeving Parents, there could be no Beleevers Infants. Sir, I do agree with you that the Conſequence is good; but that theſe men who were exhorted by the Apoſtle to be baptized, they and their children, that they were not looked upon by him in the notion of Beleevers before Baptiſme, this I deny. Indeed according to the uſuall method of your partie (whoſe cheif deſigne is to make the people) you bring in two or three ſimple reaſons of your own to prove them Beleevers, and patch them upon my back as if I were the author of them.
But firſt, I do not ſay becauſe the Promiſe did belong to them, that therefore they were Beleevers, for then all the ſeed of Iſrael would be Beleevers of the laſt diſpenſation.
Secondly, Neither do I ſay, becauſe they were cut to the heart, and had the ſpirit of bondage, that therefore they were Beleevers: for to ſpeak truly, a Beleever doth make ſpeciall application of the general promiſe; but the ſpirit of bondage doth ariſe from the particular aſſent to the general threats. Yet nevertheleſſe in the particularity of the ſin from whence the ſpirit of bondage doth ariſe, I ſhould (for my part) be more warie then abſolutely to conclude, that theſe men as ſuch were unbeleevers. To me it is a ſtrange thing, that a man ſhould be … to the heart for crucifying the Chriſt, and yet not …leeve him to be the Chriſt. There are ſome other ſtrange paſſages of yours concerning the ſpirit of bondage, and concerning the meaning of Revel. 21.8. which ſhow you to be very rude and unexpert in the true ſenſe of the Scriptures: When the ſpirit ſaith, but the fearfull, and the unbeleeving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, &c. Would any man beſides your ſelf expound the (Fearfull) to be meant of all thoſe that lie under the ſpirit of bondage, that all ſuch ſhould have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimſtone? By this reaſon you muſt needs condemne many tender ſoules, and put them under a heavy condition. But, Sir, that you may not be deceived, the word (Fearfull) muſt be expounded according to the Analogie of the whole Prophecie, which is concerning the ſufferings of the Saints under the Antichriſtian ſtate. The word (Fearfull) then is to be applied to them that deny Chriſt in the time of perſecution for fear of man. How croſſely then do you apply it to them that are under the ſpirit of bondage through fear of the juſtice of God? But in this caſe you do no better with this Scripture, then many others do with the raign of Chriſt upon the Earth. They take it, that the glory of his Kingdome doth lie in plucking down of Magiſtracy and Miniſtery, and laying all things level; whereas if they did rightly underſtand the Scriptures, and the ſcope of the Prophecy, they would find that the Lord Chriſt doth begin to raigne when a godly Magiſtracy is ſet up in the Common-wealth, and a powerfull Miniſtery (aſſigned to preach the Goſpel by vertue of office) is ſeated in the Church; But this by the way. Now, Sir, that Peters hearers were true Beleevers, of the laſt diſpenſation, I am moved to beleeve it from this double ground.
Firſt, From the tender of the Promiſe. The Promiſe was not only offered to them as it was revealed to Abraham, and beleeved in all the times of the Jewiſh Church, to wit, that the promiſed Meſſiah ſhould come; but the promiſe tendered to them, was remiſſion of ſinne by the blood of the particular Jeſus already come, whom they had crucified and ſlaine.
Secondly, I take them to be Beleevers from the receiving of the Promiſe: For as remiſſion of ſinne was tendered to them by the blood of the particular Chriſt: So when they on their part did receive the promiſe ſo exhibited, they were Beleevers. And in this ſenſe, I ſay, the word of Command was that they and the children under their education ſhould be baptized.
Fourthly, (pag. 9. lin.) 32. You come to the main point; to wit, that a right to the Promiſe doth not inferre and bring in a right to Baptiſme. You argue thus, If Peter had a Commiſſion ſo large, to baptize all to whom the Promiſe did belong, then he muſt have baptized the whole nation of the Jewes, and particularly the perſons to whom he ſpake before the word came unto them, or before their Conſcience was awakened by the word. Here, Sir, I do acknowledge that you ſpeak punctually to the aſſumption in my argument. Therefore for the more clear illuſtration of the words of Peter, and for the more full diſcovery of the force of the argument which I have alledged, I will ſtay the longer upon this point.
And to begin with the ground of all, I do not ſay (though you are willing to miſtake my meaning) that a right to the Promiſe doth abſolutely inferre a right to Baptiſme: for then all beleevers from the beginning of the world would have had a right to Baptiſme. But I ſay this, that the right which Beleevers and their children have to the Promiſe (as exhibited, revealed, and declared in the laſt times under the New Teſtament,) this doth inferre and bring in a right to Baptiſme. And in this doth the force of my argument conſiſt.
That this may more evidently be declared, and that you may judge aright, I would intreat you to diſtinguiſh between the Promiſe it ſelf, and the ſeverall revelations, exhibitions, manifeſtations, and editions of the ſame Promiſe. The Ocean ſea is one and the ſame, but yet as it beats upon the Spaniſh coaſt, it is called the Spaniſh ſea; as it beats upon the French coaſt, it is called the French ſea; and upon the Engliſh coaſt, the Engliſh ſea: So the Promiſe is one and the ſame to Beleevers and their children; yet according to ſeveral diſpenſations it is various & manifold.
To begin therefore with the Promiſe it ſelf. There is but one way of ſalvation, by Chriſt the promiſed Seed, according to that ſaying of the Apoſtle, Jeſus Chriſt yeſterday, and to day, and the ſame for ever, Heb. 13.8. But for the degrees of revelation, there are three remarkable exhibitions and editions of the Promiſe.
The firſt is, for the ſpace of two thouſand years, from Adam to Abraham.
The ſecond is, for the ſpace of two thouſand years, from Abraham to Chriſt.
The third is, from Chriſt to the end of the world.
Theſe ſeverall exhibitions of the Promiſe ought carefully to be diſtinguiſhed: for from hence do ariſe the differences of Faith, the differences of profeſſion of the Faith, the difference of Church ſtates, the differences of the ſeals of admiſſion, the differences of right to the ſeals of admiſſion. Yea the differences are ſo great, that a true beleever of the heart under one diſpenſation cannot have a right, as ſuch, to the Church ſtate, or the ſeal of admiſſion under another diſpenſation. I ſay, he cannot not have a right to the Church ſtate, or the ſeal of admiſſion, till he hath received the Promiſe as exhibited and revealed under that particular diſpenſation. Yet nevertheleſſe, let there be never ſuch great diverſitie, this will ſtill prove a firme and an undoubted truth in all exhibitions and diſpenſations, that when a man beleeveth the Promiſe, and doth come in, the right to Church-memberſhip ſhall belong to him and to his children. Let us now come to inſtance.
The firſt edition of the Promiſe is for two thouſand years from Adam to Abraham; and here though God did not ſhow the ſonnes of men the Meſſiah in perſon as he doth to us, nor of what particular familie or nation he ſhould come, as he did to the people of the Jewes; yet in the general he did make ſo much of the truth thereof known to them, that the Seed of the woman ſhould break the Serpents head. Gen. 3.15. He did require them to beleeve the promiſe ſo generally revealed, and to make publick profeſſion thereof: and to ſuch as did beleeve and publickly profeſſe, the priviledge did belong to them to be called the people of God; and in thoſe times the promiſe was to beleevers and their naturall ſeed. For proof of this, let us conſider that Scripture; The ſonnes of God ſaw the daughters of men were faire. Gen. 6.2. By ſons of God you are not to underſtand them in that ſenſe as they are meant Rom. 8.14. There it is ſaid, If ye be led by the ſpirit of God, then ye are the ſons of God. The ſons of God in the Text of Geneſis cannot be taken in this ſenſe that they had the Spirit of God, and were led by his Spirit; but they are called the ſons of God, becauſe they were the naturall poſterity of beleeving Parents, becauſe they were the children of Seth, and other holy men, who in thoſe times are mentioned to call upon the name of the Lord, Gen. 4.26. This ſheweth plainly in the time of the firſt exhibition of the promiſe, that Beleevers children, as ſuch, had a right to Church-memberſhip with their Parents; and I may ſay alſo to the ſeal of admiſſion, if any ſuch had been in thoſe firſt times.
The ſecond edition of the Promiſe is for two thouſand years from Abraham to Chriſt. And here though the Lord did not go ſo far with them as to ſhow the promiſed Seed in perſon, as he hath done to us: yet he went further with them then with the Beleeevers of the firſt diſpenſation. He did not only ſhow them the bleſſed Seed to come, but the particular familie and nation from whence he ſhould come. And therefore they that did beleeve under this diſpenſation, were not only bound to beleeve the general promiſe made to Adam concerning the loſt ſonnes of men; but they were to beleeve the promiſe made to Abraham; they were more particularly bound to joyn themſelves to that familie, and to make publick profeſſion of the Promiſe, as revealed in the time of that exhibition. They that did this, the promiſe did belong to them and to their children, and ſo conſequently the children had a right to be admitted into the Church that then was, by the initiall ſeal, or by circumciſion the ſeal of admittance.
Now the third edition of the Promiſe is from Chriſt unto the end of the world. And here the Lord doth not only ſhow the general promiſe made to the loſt ſons of men, nor the promiſed Seed to come of the particular familie of Abraham; but he goeth further to ſhow the Meſſiah individually, and in perſon, who he is. Ieſus Chriſt, conceived by the holy Ghoſt, born of the Virgin Mary, ſuffered under Pontius Pilate, &c. he is the promiſed Seed. They therefore that beleeve under this diſpenſation, they are not only bound to receive the Promiſe as generally made in the two former diſpenſations; but they are further required (as may appear by the Apoſtles Sermons) to beleeve the Chriſt come in the fleſh, and that he is the promiſed Seed. Now they that do receive the Promiſe as exhibited in this manner, have a right to Baptiſme, the ſeal of admiſſion into the Church in the times of the New Teſtament. And not only ſo, but as to beleevers in the two former diſpenſations, ſo in this laſt and beſt exhibition of the Covenant, the Promiſe doth hold one and the ſame in ſubſtance to Beleevers and their Children. This is the true ſenſe of Peters words, and this is the force of my argument.
Having thus laid down the ſeveral exhibitions of the Promiſe, and how in each exhibition the Promiſe variouſly diſpenſed, is the ground of Faith, Faith the ground of Profeſſion, Profeſſion the ground from whence Beleevers in any diſpenſation have a right to Church memberſhip, and ſo conſequently to the ſeal of admiſſion in each diſpenſation reſpectively; Having laid down theſe grounds, I come now to anſwer your objections.
You ſay (pag. 9. lin. 32.) If the Commiſſion be ſo large to baptize all to Whom the Promiſe doth appertain, why doth the Apoſtle lay ſuch a preciſe ta…k upon them to repent before they could be baptized? Seeing the Promiſe did belong to the Nation of the Iewes, Rom. 9. Why did not the Apoſtle baptize the whole Nation? Why did he not baptize theſe particular Iewes that had crucified Chriſt before they were awakened by the word? Why did not hee his endeavour to baptize them againſt their wills, and to take them napping while they were aſleep, as you do with your Infants in England? Sir, this is the ſubſtance of your cavils. To all which I anſwer, thoſe priviledges mentioned Rom. 9. to wit, The Covenants, the giving of the Law, the ſervice of God and the promiſes, all theſe priviledges dib belong to the Jews, not as they were a Nation, but as they were a Covenanting Nation.
For you may find by the ſcope of the Scripture, that theſe things did not only belong to the naturall Jews, but alſo to the Proſelytes and their children, as well as to them Exod. 12.48.
Secondly, When you have all done, the naturall Jews were but beleevers, and ſo capable of the ſeal of admiſſion in their own particular diſpenſation. Nay, for the moſt part, theſe Jewes that looked for the promiſed Meſſiah, that had the promiſe and the ſeal of the promiſe in their own diſpenſation, formerly they were, and as yet are, the crucifiers of the particular Meſſiah, and the greateſt enemies of the promiſe, as exhibited and revealed in the laſt times. For this very cauſe Peter did bring the word ſo ſharply home to the conſcience to awaken them, ſeeing they could not poſſibly receive the promiſe in the laſt exhibition, who had been before the crucifiers of the particular Chriſt. Whereas you ſay. That the Apoſtle might have baptized them againſt their wills, and have taken them napping as we do with our Infants in England;
Sir, Your compariſon will not hold, for the Infants of this Church, though they have no actuall underſtanding, yet they are the children of ſuch as do beleeve, at leaſt ſuch as profeſſe they do beleeve the particular Chriſt. They do not only beleeve the promiſed Meſſiah, that he ſhould come of the ſtock of Abraham, as did the Beleevers of the Jewiſh Church; but they beleeve, at leaſt they profeſſe they beleeve the particular Chriſt, which the Jewiſh Nation had crucified and ſlaine. Further they profeſſe that they will bring up their Infants, at leaſt they are willing that their Infants ſhould be taught by the publick Miniſtery under which they live by and through it to be brought up in the Chriſtian Faith, and ſo to look after the Chriſt. For this reaſon Sir, your compariſon will not hold betwixt the Infants of this Nation, and the Jews that were the crucifiers of the Chriſt.
Further, you go on and reaſon (pag. 10. lin. 17.) If the promiſe did belong to the Jews and their children, why did not the Prophets baptize? this is to call the Prophets accurſed for the neglect of the dutie that appertained to them. To which I anſwer, I ſhould have called the Prophets accurſed if they had neglected to call upon the people to beleeve the promiſe, and to apply the ſeal of the promiſe to themſelves and to their children, ſo far as it 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. Ʋnto 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. Though much hath been written and ſaid to finde out this or that interpretation; yet for my part I cannot poſſibly find out a ſenſe how the Children of the Corinthians, as born of one or two beleeving Parents, may be ſaid to be holy, if this be not meant of Covenant holyneſſe. In the two former diſpenſations, for four thouſand years together, the children of beleevers were accounted the ſons of God, Gen. 6.2, 3. The holy Seed, Ezra. 9.2. The holy People, Dan. 8.24. The Children of the Kingdome, Matth. 8.11. The Children of the Covenant, Act. 3.25. And ſuch like expreſſions. Therefore when the Apoſtle ſpeaketh of the Children of the beleeving Corinthians, that becauſe one or both Parents did beleeve and profeſſe, therefore the Children were holy, I cannot underſtand this any other way, but of the Birth-priviledge of Beleevers Children now in the laſt, aſwell as in the two former editions of the Promiſe. Therefore when it is ſaid in the Text, that many of the Corinthians beleeving were baptized, I cannot ſee how the words can bear any other ſenſe but this; Many of the Corinthians beleeving were baptized, they and their houſholds; as Criſpus the chief ruler of the Synagogue beleeved, and was baptized, he and his houſhould. The Analogue doth ſtand between Criſpus and other Beleevers, between the houſhold of Criſpus and the houſholds of other Beleevers: and this I take to be the true meaning of the Text. I have ſtayed the longer upon this point, to ſhow that we have not only a Precept, but a competent number of examples out of the New Teſtament, for the Baptiſme of Beleevers and their Children. But now Sir, leſt you ſhould take occaſion to cavill at examples, aſwell as at the Precept; I will inſiſt upon the former part of the verſe, and urge you only with this queſtion, Whether do you think that Criſpus beleeving on the Lord with all his houſe, was baptized with the reſt of the Corinthians, yea or no? If you deny it, how will you prove conſtant to your own principles of Beleevers Baptiſme? Why ſhould not Criſpus, a prime Beleever be baptized aſwell as the reſt of the Corinthians that did beleeve through grace? But if you affirme it (as affirm it you muſt) then it is neceſſary (ſeeing his Baptiſme is not expreſſed in ſo many Letters) that you ſupply the former part of the Verſe with the ſenſe of the words that follow after. Now let me do the like with Peters words, and you ſhall find an excellent harmonie; Then Peter ſaid, repent and be baptized every one of you (and your children), in the name of the Lord Jeſus Christ, for the remiſſion of ſinne; for the Promiſe belongs to you and your children. So I beleeve the words of Peter, and deſight to hear their ſweet agreement; I do delight to read the Children in the word of Command, ſeeing they are ſo plainly expreſſed in the word of Promiſe. Now, Sir, let us ſee how you conclude.
You bid me, as I tender the life of my argument, to have him to ſome other place for relief; You tell me (pag. 12. lin. 1.) that you have received an order from Quarter-Maſter Generall, that the tent of my argument be removed from the Text, that it may no longer cumber the holy ground, it being appointed for a piece of ſervice more honourable. Surely, Sir, when you wrote theſe things, I cannot otherwiſe think but that you had ſome high opinion of your own performance, Whereas you adviſe me to have my argument to ſome other place; belike you would have me to underſtand that you had (according to the title of your book) conquered all before you. But I will aſſure you Sir, (to deal plainly with you, and that you may not flatter your ſelf) you are ſo far from taking my chief Fort (as you pretend) that you have not at all, or at leaſt in ſmall degree given an aſſault thereunto. And then let any Logician in the world judge what reaſon you had to glory in your conqueſt. You ſtand much upon my rending and tearing aſunder the words, be baptized every one of you, from the words Repent and——. Now this is not ſo, for in a Covenant ſence the Children do repent or make profeſſion of repentance in the Parents that do undertake for them. But if this could be proved, what is it to the force of my Argument which you undertake to anſwer? The medium, the middle terme, or the reaſon from the words of the text, is not from the words, be baptized every one of you, as you would make the reader beleeve; but from theſe words, for the Promiſe is to you and your Children. Becauſe the Children are plainly expreſſed in the word of promiſe; this is to me a true ground wherefore they are contained in the word of Command. Now let any man judge that reads Baby-Baptiſme routed, or the taking of the chief Fort, as it is in the title of your Pamphlet, what you have done in the body of your anſwer againſt the principall medium; againſt the right that the Children have to Baptiſme by the word of Promiſe. Seeing you did grant the Propoſition, it was needfull to ſpend your force upon the aſſumption. Again, Mr. Everard, you inſiſt upon this, that the Jews, the whole Nation of them, becauſe they had a right to the word of Promiſe, why had they not a right to Baptiſme by the word of Command? Here you make a faire flouriſh upon the generality of the promiſe without any diſtinction at all. But whoſoever he is that will diſtinguiſh the ſeverall diſpenſations of one and the ſame promiſe, and the right that Beleevers and their Children have to the Seal in each diſpenſation, he ſhall find that you have ſaid juſt nothing. And you that talked ſo much of taking the chief Fort, have ſtollen away ſecretly from it, as the enemy did from the ſeige of Bergen-ap-Zome, in the ſmoake of Gun-powder.
Further, ſuppoſe there had been ſome weakneſſe in my Argument, yet there is no ſuch cauſe (as you adviſe) to remove its Tent from the coaſts of the Text; for I will aſſure you as long as I read theſe words, For the Promiſe is to you and your Children, as long as I read theſe words in the laſt exhibition of the Promiſe, and a promiſe anſwering the word of Command; as long as I read a convertibility between the word of Command, and the word of Promiſe, in Baptiſme aſwell as in other Sacraments, I ſhall be loath to obey the order which you ſay you have received from Quarter-Maſter Generll to diſcharge me of the Text. But ſeeing you will needs be ſo pitifull to a poor Argumeet (in your apprehenſion) beaten upon the Ice, I would intreat you that you would not deal ſo unkindly with him, as to remove him from the Text. For if I be not greatly miſtaken, this Scripture is not ſo barren to afford one only Argument, but it is a wel-ſpring and Fountaine of Arguments for the Baptiſme of Beleevers and their Children. When you come to tryall, you will ſind always when you take away one, another will ſpring up.
But Sir, let the worſt fall out that can be, if you ſhould imagine that there were no footing for my Argument in the Text, and the Text (as you ſay) (pag. 12. lin. 10.) would claime no acquaintance or kindred with it; yet the Argument may be true in the general, and may be made good from other Texts of Scripture. For if the Promiſe to Beleevers and their Children doth hold in the times of the laſt exhibition, aſwell as in the two former, then neceſſarily the word of Promiſe will draw in the word of Command, and the right to the Promiſe in its laſt and beſt exhibition will inforce a right to the Seal. And ſo we ſhall have a Precept for the Baptiſme of Beleevers and their Children proved from the ſcope of Scripture, and do you your worſt.
Now Sir, in the laſt place, let me come to the ſtructure and frame of my Argument. You ſay (pag. 12. lin. 28.) that the premiſes do not hold due proportion with the concluſion; you ſay, either the premiſes are ſuperfluous, or the concluſion is wanting. I do willingly yeild in every lawfull Syllogiſme, that the premiſes muſt have due correſpondence with the concluſion. But how? The correſpondence muſt not alwayes be in letters and ſyllables, but in ſenſe and meaning. But why is there ſuch a diſproportion betwixt the premiſes and the concluſion? You ſay, that the Premiſes ſpeak that the children of Beleevers must have a right; the Concluſion is, they have a right. You ſay that muſt have a right, and have a right, are not all one: after a while is not yet. There be many that are heires in England, can ſay they must have, with caution, but they had rather ſay they have in poſſeſſion. (pag. 13. lin. 3.) Sir, theſe are but cavils at words, as any man may plainly ſee: For have a right, and muſt have a right are all one in the ſenſe of the Argument. Now that I did put in the word (muſt) it was to ſhow the union and neceſſary connexion between the two parts of the conditional propoſition. For your inſtance of an heire in England, we are not now upon the diviſion of Lands, but upon the union of the parts of a propoſition. But to ſhow that this is a true hypothetical Syllogiſme, I will according to the rule of the Logicians, reduce it to a Categorical forme, and put it in the firſt figure, as followeth.
They that have a right to be baptized by the word of Promiſe, have a right to be baptized by the word of Command.
But the children of Beleevers have a right to be baptized by the word of Promiſe.
Therefore the children of Beleevers have a right to be baptized by the word of Command.
And ſo conſequently there is a word of Command to baptize Beleevers Children in the New Teſtament. Now by the rule of reduction I leave it to your ſelf, and to any other man to judge, what cauſe you had to except againſt the ſtucture of my Syllogiſme.
You go on, and cavill againſt the Major propoſition, and reaſon thus (pag. 13.) If the Children of Beleevers have a right to be baptized by the word of Promiſe, there is no need of a right to be baptized by the word of Command. Sir, I confeſſe that God is not bound alwayes to adde a Seal to the confirmation of his Promiſe, we may beleeve his word without addition of Seals. But I ſpeak in a Sacramental relation; where he hath once appointed a Sacrament for the uſe of his Church, they that have a right to the Promiſe, have a right to the Seal.
As for example, The body of the faithfull have a right to remiſſion of ſin by the blood of Chriſt, aſwell as their guides and teachers: And therefore under that title, they have (let the Papiſts ſay what they will) a right alſo to the cup of the New Teſtament in Chriſts blood, 1 Cor. 11.25. So in the like caſe, ſeeing the Promiſe is to Beleevers and their Children in the laſt and beſt exhibition therefore, do what you can, if the Children of Beleevers have a right to the Promiſe ſo exhibited, they muſt have a right to the Seal.
Further, You call the right that Beleevers children have to baptiſme by the word of Promiſe, a cloudy, ſaying, (pag. 13.) The ſaying is a clear Scripture truth, but it may be a cloudy ſaying to ſuch as will not ſee what they may ſee. It is a cloudy ſaying at this day to the Jew, that Jeſus Chriſt is the promiſed Meſſiah ſpoken of in the Prophets; and it is a cloudy ſaying to the Papiſt, that a man is juſtified by Faith alone: and ſo it is a cloudy ſaying to you, that the Children of Beleevers have a right to Baptiſme by the word of Promiſe, as revealedin the laſt times. But you are to conſider that the darkneſſe is not in the ſayings, but the clouds are in your own blind mindes, that cannot or will not ſee the truth.
You go on, and further except againſt the right that the children of Beleevers have to Baptiſme by the word of Promiſe: And becauſe you will put ſome abſurdity upon the ſaying, you argue thus (pag. 13.) If there be ſuch a neceſſity to baptize the children of Beleeveers, it is either for God to baptize them, or for his ſervants to baptize them. To ſpeak briefly and plainly, there is a neceſſity of Precept that lieth upon all Chriſtian Parents, that do beleeve the Chriſt come in the fleſh to profeſſe the Faith, and to baptize their Children; For herein lieth a conſiderable part of the Chriſtian profeſſion, not only for the Father to ingage himſelf by Baptiſme to Chriſt come in the fleſh, but he is bound alſo to bring in his children, and thoſe that live under his education into the ſame ingagement. Therefore, Sir, I do much queſtion, if either you or any man elſe ſhall refuſe to oblige your infants to the Lord Chriſt, whether you do hold forth the whole confeſſion of the faith of Chriſt come in the fleſh. I will make no particular application, but ſure I am, St. John ſaith in the general, Every ſpirit that confeſſeth not Chriſt come in the fleſh is not of God, and this is the ſpirit of Antichriſt. 1 Joh. 3.3. But now to ſhut up all, as I began, ſo I conclude, that there is a Precept in the New Teſtament for the Baptiſme of Infants. My Argument (as it was formerly) is ſtill the ſame with ſome amplification, I argue from Peters words after this manner.
They that have a right to Baptiſme by the word of Promiſe, as exhibited in the laſt times, they have a right to be baptized by the word of Command.
But the children of Beleevers have a right to Baptiſme by the word of Promiſe, as exhibited in the laſt times.
Therefore the children of Beleevers have a right to be baptized by the word of Command. And fo conſequently in the New Teſtament there is a Precept to baptize 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 foreign 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.