yet neverthelesse for a more clear understanding of things and the taking away of doubts that may arise let us distinguish between a Nation under Paganisme and a Nation where Christian Religion is set up in the throne If you speak of a Nation under Paganisme we may say that such a Nation is so far discipled as any part of it doth submit to the Faith As for example when Paul came to Rome to preach the Gospel by his preaching he did not make the whole people of Rome a discipled people But they were so far forth made a discipled Nation as any particular men in that City did beleeve and did engage themselves to bring up all under their education in the faith of the Christ come in the flesh so far they became a discipled Nation and no further And this is the reason wherefore in those first times we read only of the Baptisme of Beleevers and their housholds because then the Christian education was only in the houses of the Faithfull the Roman Emperour being as yet but a step-father and an enemy to the Church Secondly If you consider a Nation so far forth as the Christian Faith is set up as the Religion of the State in this sence we take a discipled Nation in a larger extent For not only the families of those that truly beleeve but the families of others also that are willing to yeeld to the Christian education and to live under the tuition of a godly Magistracy in the Common-wealth and the instruction of a powerfull Ministery in the Church so far forth as they are willing to be guided by the Lawes and the Government of the Church of Christ and are no worse so far they must go under the notion of a discipled Nation and Parents and Children both be the lawfull subject of Baptisme If this be not so let any man shew a reason why God should tye his grace only to the Children of those that truly beleeve when the Children of others also are willing to live under the shadow of his Ordinances and therein to wait for the in-coming and influence of his grace In Abrahams family not only they that were borne in his house but they that were bought with his money were esteemed to belong to that education Gen. 17.12 17. If any shall say that this was the time of the Jewish Church state to take in all under that Government He that doth so reason let him shew the meaning of the Spirit in the Revelation when he speaketh of the reign of Christ upon the Earth ch 20. and of the Kingdoms of this world that they became the Kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ ch 11. ver 15.17 What is the meaning of this but that the Kingdoms of this world being before the Kingdomes of the Beast and yeelding subjection to his universall Headship they became the Kingdomes of Christ to live in subjection under the Gospel as the Regent Law By all that hath been spoken a discipled Nation may be known by their subjection to the Gospel at least by their outward profession of the Faith to which they do submit I have stayed the longer upon this point by reason of a Question that was put to me when I was at Earle-shilton For being there and insisting upon the Baptisme of Beleevers and their Children and that from the words of Peter Act. 2.38 39. a Question was then put to me in these words By what right do you baptize the Children in your Parish do you take all your Parishioners for true Beleevers My Answer then was and now is That I do baptize them as branches of a discipled Nation For seeing the Parents do outwardly professe the Christ come in the flesh and because they are willing that I should teach their Children the principles of the Faith upon this consideration I do baptize the Children aforesaid So far as I understand I have a word of command for it The Children being contained in the word them teach all Nations baptizing them Now whereas some godly People in these times impute the evils among us to Infant-baptisme in this they are deceived it is for want of a Discipline to hold us unto that which we do professe Let any man take away a Coercive-government out of a Common-wealth a Discipline from an Army a Rod out of a Schoole and then let him see whether he may not count as many disorders in those wayes as now he doth see in Parish-Churches To say the truth we have had never an Excommunication at least none rightly used and this hath been a great cause of the evill in the Parochiall-Church-way in which now we stand Therefore if things be out of order among us as indeed they are I do willingly confesse that this doth arise from the want of a Discipline to make a separation between the Precious and the Vile It doth arise from want of diligent Catechising of Children according to the strict trusts of their Baptisme when they were first admitted It doth arise from the want of a powerfull and spirituall Ministery as formerly in greater measure so now also in too too many places It doth arise also from the want of Communion of Saints to carry on the work of grace in one anothers heart These are the causes of disorder by which all the rest is put out of frame They then that impute these mischiefes to Infant-baptisme they do impose upon us with a Sophisme they put that for the cause which is not the cause That this may appeear let us take it as granted That a Disciple able to make outward profession in his own Person is the only subject of Baptisme I say then by their own rule the Masters of Division cannot deny Baptisme to a Child of eight or ten years old when he is able to repeat the principles of the Faith If they deny it to such a one they must deny Baptisme to a Disciple and what is this but to crosse their own-principles Again if they admit such a one to outward Baptisme as admit him they must what true difference is there between such a one and an Infant of three dayes old especially such an Infant whose Parents will faithfully promise and ingage for his education For my part I am not acute enough to see a difference at least such a difference that men should demolish Parishes overturne Foundations tear Churches and Congregations in peices disturb the peace of the Church and the Common-wealth and set all on fire as I apprehend for bables and trifles I have done with the first place I come now to the most speciall Scripture to prove the Baptisme of Infants from the promise made to Beleevers and their Children The second Scripture to prove a precept is from the words of Peter in the first solemne administration of Baptisme Act. 2.38 39. Now that this may be more fully understood I will take the liberty to open the Text in a plain and familiar way by question
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
This is the meaning of the text that the promise doth belong to the children of Beleevers whether Jewes or Gentiles whether in the second or in the third dispensation the promise doth belong to the children when the parents come to embrace the faith On this ground doth the Apostle urge the word of command to father and child be baptized every one of you and this I take to be the true meaning of the text Quest So you say but what sufficient reason can you bring to assure the conscience Answ That which doth much assure me is the Apostles own interpretation in the chapter following for there he showeth that the blessing in the particular family of Abraham shall be applyed to all the beleeving families kindreds and nations of the earth Acts 3.25 26. with Gal. 3.8 Gen. 12.3 Now what is this but that the promise shall be one and the same to them that beleeve among the Gentiles and their families as to them that did beleeve among the Jewes and their families He doth not speak onely of Beleevers in person but of Beleevers and their children why else doth he say concerning Christ the promised seed all the families shall be blessed in him Why else doth he use this expression But that the promise now in the last times is still one and the same to Beleevers and their families On this ground doth he build the word of command to the parents that did beleeve and to their children Be baptized every one of you Quest If this be the meaning of the command why is there no more frequent mention of the Baptisme of children in the New Testament Answ Because the Apostles after the giving forth of the commission had principally to deal with the Jewes to bring them out of Judaisme and with the Gentiles to bring them out of Gentilisme their work did lye especially in this For this cause we read more often of the Baptisme of such that did beleeve and professe in their own person Yet neverthelesse we find it again and again repeated in the story of the N. Testament that such and such a one beleeveth and was baptized he and his house So farre therefore as I can discern the ordinary baptizing of housholds in those dayes is a plain example to illustrate the word of command in the Apostles words to baptize beleevers and their children Quest For the baptisme of housholds though we do read this again and again repeated yet we are to understand it of such only that did make outward profession Answ True The Apostles did baptize such as did professe in their own persons yet they did baptize the housholds in relation to the fathers engagement For the proof of this I do offer these ensuing reasons First it was the general practise of the Church going before when the father did beleeve and professe he was received with his houshold Exod. 12.48 Therefore when the Apostles did baptize in the new Administration we can conceive no other but they did follow the common use in receiving the father that did beleeve with his children Secondly when they did preach the Gospel they did bring the blessing of Abraham into the beleeving families of the earth If they did this they must needs in the last dispensation apply the promise and the seale generally to all beleeving families of the earth in the same manner as formerly it was applyed to the particular family of Abraham Now what is this but to take in the professing parent with his children Thirdly in those times those that were brought out of Judaisme or Paganisme did at the time of their entrance into the Church make a solemne league and covenant with God to professe the faith they and their families Acts 16.14 1 Cor. 1.12 13 14. Ephes 6.4 Therefore when the Apostles did baptize the housholds of beleevers we cannot conceive that they did this only in relation to some persons that made actual profession but in relation to the fathers ingagement that did undertake for himself and for his children Fourthly they that say the Apostles did baptize the housholds and such in the housholds only as did actually beleeve and professe they that say this let them show a reason why the houshold of Lydia was baptized for we read only of her that the Lord opened her heart to beleeve the Christ If you will say that her family was baptized in relation to her undertaking then the reason will lye cleare in the text Lydia was judged faithful to the Lord and so was baptized she and her houshold Acts. 16.14 All these reasons put together plainly demonstrate the Apostolical practise to baptize beleevers housholds in relation to their undertaking for themselves and for their children If this be so there must needs be an example to answer the Apostolical precept Be baptized every one of you Father and Child for the Promise is to you and to your children And so from the words of Peter compared with the practise of other Apostles we have both a precept and an example for the Baptisme of Children in the New-Testament and as I think our task is done I come now to the third Scripture to prove the necessity of Infant-baptisme Thirdly In the conference with Nicodemus our Saviour doth insist much upon the pollution of the Naturall birth and the necessity of Regeneration both by Water without and the Spirit within Now in this Scripture there is included a Precept to Beleevers to apply the outward washing to their Children born in Originall sinne the Seal of the inward washing That this may bee made manifest I will First clear the Text from two ordinary mistakes Secondly from the words rightly expounded I will show how the precept is deduced by necessary consequence For the mistaks in the first place they do over shoot themselves that plead from hence an absolute necessitie of the Baptisme of infants Indeed there is an absolute necessitie that all that are borne in Originall sinne if they be saved they must be saved by the Covenant but there is not a like necessitie of the Seal In the times of the first dispensation to comfort Beleevers in respect of their Children born in Originall sinne the promise then was The seed of the woman shall break the Serpents head Gen. 3.15 Yet there was no Seal of this Promise no initiall Seal for two thousand years together from Adam to Abraham Further there was not such absolute necessity of the Seal in the times of Circumcision for those that died before the eight day There was then as now is an absolute necessity of Salvation by the Promise and the Covenant but the necessity of the Seal was only conditionall so far forth as it might be well had Therefore when the ancient Writers Fathers and Schoolmen speak so much of the necessity of Baptisme and of the Salvation of Infants strictly and precisely upon terms of Baptisme to my understanding they ascribe too much to the outward Ordinance and so
natural seed but with a double proviso the first is that they should beleeve the grand promise of Christ In thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed Gen. 12.3 By the intervening or coming between of Christ the promised seed Abraham was to look that God would be his God and the God of his natural seed Secondly when the Lord did promise to be his God and the God of his seed it was upon a condition that they would keep his Covenant that they would confesse their natural pollution and that by receiving the outward Circumcision in the flesh they would binde and ingage themselves and their children to look after the inward circumcision of the heart Gen. 18.9 10 11 12. with Ezek 44.9 Deut. 10.16 chap. 30.6 Jer. 4.4 Rom. 2.28 Upon these two considerations did the Lord promise to be a God to Abraham and to his natural seed Now if we apply this to the New Testament the promise is still one and the same to Beleevers and their children as it was to Abraham and to his particular family how else could this berightly said In thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed Therefore God is a God to Beleevers and to their natural children in the last upon the same termes as he was to Beleevers and their children in the former dispensation and the termes are these First that they beleeve the general promise of Christ In thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed Acts 3.25 26. By the intervening of this promise the blessing doth hold one and the same to all the beleeving families of the earth as it did before to the particular family of Abraham Secondly the promise to beleevers and their children doth now hold upon these termes that the parents by the outward washing in Baptisme will ingage themselves and their children to look after the inward washing that so they may be cleansed from the pollution of their natural birth Upon these termes God is now a God to beleevers and their naturall seed and upon these considerations there is now a necessity of precept to baptize beleevers and their children And this I take to be vertually included in that general expression Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit c. Thus I have gone through the three places of Scripture from which I did undertake to prove a precept for the baptisme of infants in the New Testament We have seen first that the children are comprehended inclusively and collectively in the word them teach all Nations baptizing them Matth. 28. Secondly we have declared that the children are contained in the word of command be baptized every one of you because they are expressed in the word of promise Act. 2 38 39. Thirdly we have proved because infants are born in Originall sinne they have now the same need of the regenerating seal by outward washing Except ye be born of water and of the Spirit John 3.5 All these put together plainly show that there is a word of Command to satisfie the Conscience and though the Children are not named in letters and syllables it is all one if they be contained in sence There be many things comprehended in a Command that are not literally declared Take for example the Command Honour thy father and mother there is more contained in this Precept then only to give honour to naturall Parents So take the Command Thou shalt do no murder this doth reach further then the bare letter of the word Even so in the Scriptures forealledged we have proved Infants to be vertually included in the word of Command though they are not expressed in the formality of letters and syllables But if you will say the more literally and distinctly things are set down the more easily we come to know and beleeve that these things are commanded us of God This I did acknowledge to be true in a sence but yet it is as true that things which the Lord doth require us to beleeve from the harmony of Scripture are as binding to the Conscience as if they were set down in so many letters Let us take for instance that Scripture Act. 9.21 where it is said that Paul did confound the Jews dwelling at Damascus proving out of the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ Here I demand how did he confound the Jews aforesaid For if he had been put upon it to bring any one particular Scripture out of the Old Testament to prove in so many letters that Jesus was the Christ he could never have done it Yet neverthelesse he is said to confound the Jews by the harmony of Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by comparing one Scripture with another Further we do assuredly beleeve that the Bishop of Rome from that very time in which he was declared universall Head from that very time he began to be the solemne Antichrist spoken of in the Revelation If a Papist should ask how this is proved we cannot prove it by letters and syllables for the Bishop of Rome is not once named in so many letters in the whole Prophecie but if you go to the Scope of Scripture it may be proved that he is the Beast that the universall Headship is the name of the Beast the profession of the Catholicisme or universall headship is the mark of the Name and this we can prove from the harmonie of the Prophecie In a word they that will beleeve nothing but what is expressed in so many letters and syllables they will by the same reason raze out of the Bible the use of all typicall Scriptures in a manner For in them for the most part the matter is expressed by dark figures and expounded by Circumlocutions And to these absurdities will they be unavoidably deduced that do adhere so strictly to letter and syllables Now let us returne to the Baptisme of Infants and here we trust we have made it appear from the harmonie of Scripture but especially from the places forealledged that there is a word of Command for the Baptisme of Children And I would intreat the godly to do as the men of Berca sometimes did To examine the Scriptures whether these things be so or no. Having finished the Positive part I come now to the Polemical to show what the argument was which I first gave to the Brethren of the separation as also to show their severall answers with my respective replyes For the argument which I left with them in writing at Earle-Shilton from Acts 2.38 39. It is as followeth Be baptized every one of you c. Here must needs be a Command to baptize Father and Child because the Promise is to you and your children The argument doth thus proceed If the Children of Beleevers have a right to be baptized by the word of Promise they must have a right to be baptized by the word of Command But the Children of Beleevers have a right to be baptized by the word of Promise therefore
speak with divers kinds of languages What a weak support would this be if this be all the comfort contained in the Promise On the contrary if you take the Promise for the Covenant of grace for the ordinary word of promise concerning free remission of sinne by the blood of Christ sealed in the Sacrament of Baptisme there is nothing more proper then to comfort a languishing spirit by such a Promise Secondly if the Promise to you and your children be meant of extraordinary gifts how will the parts of the Text agree with each other The Apostle doth exhort them be baptized every one of you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sinne And then he giveth this reason for the Promise is to you and your children If therefore the Promise be meant only or principally of extraordinary gifts then the Command be baptized every one of you will stand in immediate relation to such a Promise And so the matter will come to this issue that all that are baptized and particularly they that renounce their old to take up a new Baptisme they will have a promise made to them and to their children to speak with divers kinds of languages On the other side if the Promise be taken for the Promise of Christ and for remission of sinne by his blood in this case it will be easie to shew the connexion of the words For what can be more aptly spoken then this Be baptized every one of you in the name of the Lord Jesus for the remission of your particular sinne for the promise of the pardon of sinne by the blood of the Christ doth belong to you and your children Thirdly if the promise to you and your children be only meant of extraordinary gifts how can the words of the Apostle be made good when he saith to all that are afar off to as many as the Lord our God shall call Will any man avouch that to as many as the Lord our God shall call the Promise shall be to them and their children to speak with divers kinds of tongues then the Promise will be to all the Saints from the comming of Christ to the end of the world that they shall speak with divers kinds of languages On the other side let the Promise be taken for that promise made to Abraham In thy seed shall all the families of the Earth be blessed this Promise at least in the general priviledges offers tenders and workings doth passe to all that do beleeve and their children whether they be near as beleevers of the Jews or whether they be afar off as beleevers of the Gentiles the Promise doth passe to all as long as they are no worse then Beleevers Children These were the reasons that moved me to affirm that the Promise to you and your children could not be meant of extraordinary gifts First this Promise alone could not comfort Peters hearers in their trouble Secondly it could not answer the word of Command be baptized every one of you Thirdly it could not be said to extend to as many as the Lord our God shall call On the other side if this be applyed to the Covenant of grace all circumstances will agree that the Promise is to Beleevers and their Children And to this doth the Apostle referre the word of Command to Fathers and Children bee baptized every one of you For the words Ye shall receive the holy Ghost I confesse they are meant of extraordinary gifts the appendant annexed to the primitive Baptisme which were peculiar to those times of the Church only For the Apostles having to do either with Gentiles to bring them out of Paganisme or with Jews to bring them out of Judaisme these extraordinary gifts were given to men for their more abundant confirmation in that Faith which they were to receive Acts 10.44 45 46. with Acts 11.15 16. This I do willingly confesse but when the Apostle saith for the Promise is to you and your children he doth point here to the grand fundamental Promise made to Abraham In thy seed shall all the families of the Earth be blessed His meaning is that if these Jews which had crucified Christ would come in and take him as the promised Seed if they would take him as the Messiah the Promise should still continue to them and to their natural seed aswell as in the former dispensation This is his meaning when he saith for the promise is to you and your Children and in relation to this Promise did he exhort them to be baptized Father and Child Thus far I went in the vindication of both propositions and in restoring of the force of my argument against the first assault On the third of Junne I delivered the substance of this reply into the hands of Mr. Everard since that time he hath been known to me and hath undertaken the matter But to say the truth I received no answer from him till the fifth of September Then I received a Paper full fraught with scornfull language and the next newes about three or four weekes after was that we had put his answer in print with a title prefixed Baby Baptisme routed In this I take my self to have none of the best usage from him First that he should put the matter publickly In print when wee were onely in a private way of inquirie Secondly that he should give his pamphlet the title of Baby Baptisme routed before we came to the tryall Thirdly that he should slight the maine body of my paper with all the inforcements and yet glory of a totall conquest when of many parts he had scarce brought one to the incounter For these reasons I think he hath not delt well with me Because his Book was lately printed for WILLIAM LEARNER at the Blackmoor in Bishops-gate street and because now it is in the hands of all men I will forbear to insert it Only my reply to the cheif particulars of his answer is as followeth 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
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