A Precept for the Baptism of Infants, Answer
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 like arguments have Mr. Swan and Mr. Boſſe. So far Mr. Everard. Here now if by Mr. Swan he intends me, I am ſure, neither he, nor his partie ever heard any ſuch arguments from me for the baptizing of Infants: and I am ſure (if he were put to it) he cannot prove what he affirmes. Therefore (Reader) take notice that Mr. Everard will not ſtick to Print falſhoods for his advantage and glory, and the plucking down and diſhonouring the partie which he doth oppoſe. That I do him no wrong, obſerve theſe paſſages following. He came to Withibrook Congregation, with others of his partie of Eſen-hall, the ſixth of October (the day when they ſold their books aforeſaid) thither they came to require ſatisfaction; for he then ſaid I had aſperſed him. At which time I offered him ſatisfaction, if he came to deal with me as a Brother. I urged his breach of our Saviours rule, If thy Brother ſinne againſt thee, &c. Mat. 18.15. He ſaid he knew the Text, and further he and others anſwered, I was no Brother but an Heathen. They alſo ſaid, All out of the Order they walked in, were Heathens.
Againſt which I thus argue, If all out of their order be Heathens, then ſtrangers to the Covenant of Promiſe, having no hope, without God in the world. So is an Heathen defined, Eph. 2.12. And if without God, and without hope, then without ſalvation, and then indeed no true Church. But doth Mr. Everard and his friends think that all out of their order are Heathens? or did they not go againſt their light when they thus ſaid? If their conſcience ſpeak the ſame language, that all are Pagans, they muſt judge them ſo, either becauſe they are ſtrangers from the Covenant of Promiſe, or becauſe they are not baptized after their manner. If Heathens, becauſe ſtrangers from the Covenant of Promiſe; then no hope of ſalvation, then a neceſſity of condemnation to all out of their order. But if Heathens, becauſe not baptized after their manner, then their Baptiſme only will make Chriſtians of Heathens: and none can be ſaved without their Baptiſme.
Secondly, If they ſay, all are Gentiles out of their order, becauſe the outward court is troden down by all thoſe out of their order. This will help nothing, becauſe it will follow upon their own principies, that there was no outward Court nor Church miniſteriall, nor Ordinances to be troden down all along the times of Antichriſts reigne. For if all out of their order were and are Heathens, then there were none but Heathens to be troden down, and ſo Heathens muſt tread down Heathens; except they will yeeld a Church viſible, and an outward Court. And in ſo doing they loſe their Cauſe.
Again, If Heathens, becauſe not baptized after their manner, and conſequently no Church; thea Mr. Everard and thoſe of his judgment, were no Church before they received this new Baptiſme; but they were Pagans aſwell as others. If they were no true Church, their firſt Adminiſtrator was no true Adminiſtrator, becauſe there was no Church to conferre an office upon him. Therefore they muſt ſay, he had his firſt Commiſſion immediatly from heaven, unleſſe they will affirme that Heathens have a power to make an Adminiſtrator of Baptiſme. Now this is contrary to the Scripture, which ſaith, they ordained Elders in every Church, Acts 14.23. Therefore in the ordinary way the Church is before Elders or Adminiſtrators. But if they ſhall ſay there was an Admimſtrator before a Church. as John Baptist: and therefore by the like reaſon they may have ſuch a one. If they ſay this, they muſt prove from the Prophets that the Goſpel-Churches muſt have two Baptiſts, be twice planted: which ſuppoſeth to Goſpel-Church in the world before the coming of the ſecond Baptiſt to plant a new Church.
Further, alſo they muſt ſay, that there is a ſecond Chriſt before whom the ſecond Baptiſt muſt come as a forerunner; And ſo new inſtitutions, and foundations of Ordinances, Baptiſts, Apoſtles, Miracles; and whither will not this conceit runne?
But if they ſay, that the Commiſſion Matth. 28.19. was their firſt Adminiſtrators rule, then he muſt be a Diſciple made by ordinary preaching and teaching, before he had authority to Miniſter their new Baptiſme, whoſoever he was. And was he taught by ſome Heathen (think they) or by a Diſciple? By an Heathen they cannot ſay. And if by a preaching Diſciple, then Chriſt had a Diſciple before their new Baptiſme. Therefore they that want their new Baptiſme, cannot bee ſtated Heathens. And how foule then was their aſſertion at Withibrook, to call all Heathens out of their order? And yet have neither command nor example in Scripture for their Baptiſme, in reference to their firſt Miniſters Commiſſion or authority.
And doth not this their practiſe come here to be condemned, which continueth judging our Churches, and all out of their order, to be Heathens, for want of their Baptiſme? Therefore let all tender-hearted Chriſtians take heed how they are intangled in ſuch a ſociety and practiſe, as will be a continuall condemning and judging of all out of their order, though never ſo godly. But if Mr. Everard and his friends are ſtill of the ſame mind, let them with tenderneſſe conſider two things: Firſt, upon what a poor foundation their Baptiſme ſtands, which muſt neceſſarily be upon an Heatheniſh foundation, or upon extraordinary revelation. The ſecond thing I would intreat them to conſider, is, how they, both in judgment and practiſe, continue condemning the generation of the juſt to hell, at leaſt all living and dead, that are not of their ſociety. What not one Saint by calling in all England, neither in Magiſtracy, Miniſtery, nor People, that is not of themſelves? all ſtrangers to God and his Chriſt? Then ſurely there is no hope that any thing will be done for the Kingdom of Chriſt by ſuch a Magiſtracy or Miniſtry.
Therefore let me intreat them not to be offended if I put a queſtion to them; What would they do with ſuch an Heathen Magiſtracy, Miniſtry, or (as one calleth them in his late book) officiating Prieſts, in caſe the power were wholly in their hands? For the Miniſtry it is clear to all the world. And for the Magiſtracy, I leave it to his judgment. For my part, I fear it.
I do not intend in theſe lines the Moderate of thoſe that diſſent from me in point of Baptiſme, but Mr. Everard and thoſe of his judgment, and the reſt that are ſo bitter againſt the godly of the Miniſtry. From them I ſhall expect an anſwer; in which they may do well to prove that their practiſe is grounded upon a Precept, in reference to their firſt admiminiſtrators authority to baptize: And when it comes to my hands, I ſhall conſider it.
FINIS.
End of the text · Nathaniel Stephens, A Precept for the Baptism of Infants (1651)