Ordinance that can with any shew of probability be supposed to be it I shall therefore only instance in a fourfold use and end whereunto Circumcision as the Sign and Token of the Covenant was appointed and whereunto it did serve and then shew the agreement of Baptism with Circumcision in regard of those uses and ends The first and two last I shall do little more than mention and a little insist upon the second First Circumcision as the Sign and Token of the Covenant was the solemn Rite or Ordinance whereby persons were admitted into and incorporated in the Jewish Church and by the reception of which they became actual Members of that Church and consequently was that solemn Rite or Ordinance whereby persons were incorporated in and united to the mystical Body of Christ as visible The proving of this I suppose is needless 't will surely be denyed by none And therefore Secondly Circumcision was to seal and assure to the Subjects of it their enjoyment of the good things benefits and blessings promised in according to the true tenour of the Covenant to the administration of which it was annexed See this in a particular Instance viz. Remission of sin or the Righteousness which is of Faith Circumcision was a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith that is it did seal and assure to the due Subjects of it the non-imputation of their sin or the imputation of righteousness to them upon condition of their Faith Thus it is said of Abraham He received the sign of Circumcision a seal of the righteousness of faith which he had being yet uncircumcised Rom. 4.11 The Apostle here shews us one special use and end of Circumcision respective to all to whom it was duly applyed Object But here it is objected That to have Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith was a priviledge peculiar to Abraham the Father of the faithful and was not of that use nor appointed for that end to all to whom it was rightfully applyed therefore it is said He received the sign of Circumcision a seal of the righteousness of faith that he might be the Father of all that believe And hence it may seem that he receiving Circumcision under that notion and consideration upon a reason and ground peculiar and proper to himself the priviledge was peculiar and proper to him and not common to any other with him there not being the same reason and ground of their receiving of it under the same notion and consideration To that I answer two things First Those words That he might be the Father of all them that believe depend not only upon the words immediately foregoing but upon the tenth verse taken in conjunction with the former part of v. 11. he did not only receive Circumcision as a Seal that he might be the Father of all them that believe but he both had righteousness imputed to him while in uncircumcision and also received the Sign of Circumcision as a Seal that he might be the Father of them that should believe whether circumcised or uncircumcised So that he did not receive Circumcision as a Seal of the righteousness of faith upon any reason peculiar and special to himself any more than he had righteousness imputed to him upon a reason peculiar and proper to himself And consequently upon the same account that our Opposites appropriate circumcision as a Seal of the righteousness of faith to Abraham himself and deny it to be of the same use to his Seed they may appropriate the imputation of Righteousness through Faith and Circumcision it self to him alone and deny that any of his Seed had Righteousness imputed unto them or ought to have been circumcised Secondly I answer That the Apostle here rather speaks of the finis cui than the finis cujus of Abraham's receiving Circumcision as a Seal My meaning is this Abraham received circumcision as a Seal not barely for the sake of that relation of his being a Father of them that should believe as it was a good benefit or priviledge to himself but he received it under that notion and consideration In eorum gratiam qui credituri sint for their sake to whom he should sustain the relation of a Father And so the meaning is He received the Sign of Circumcision as a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith not barely that he might sustain the relation of a Father to all that should believe as that was a good to himself but that he might as a Father or common person be a pattern to all that should sustain that relation of Children to him in regard of the good which they as his Children should receive Now then having removed this Objection I shall offer two or three Arguments to prove that Circumcision was appointed for this use and end viz. to seal and confirm the whole Covenant to all to whom it was according to the will of God to be applyed The first shall be taken from the end of Abraham's receiving of it as here declared by the Apostle And thus I argue If Abraham received Circumcision as a Seal of the Righteousness which he had through Faith that he might be the Father of and as the Father of a pattern to all that being circumcised should believe then to all that being circumcised did believe their circumcision was and ought to be looked upon and improved by them as a Seal of that Righteousness they had through Faith But the former is true therefore the latter For the Consequence in the Major proposition I suppose that will not be denyed it being past all rational doubt that if Abraham received Circumcision under that very notion and consideration as a Seal that he might be the Father of and as the Father of might be a pattern to all that being circumcised should believe as he did Then look of what use it was to him or to what end he received it it must needs be of the same use and appointed for the same end unto them to whom he was a pattern as receiving it And therefore 't is only the Antecedent that can be questioned which yet is so evident that to understanding and unprejudiced persons the proving of it may seem wholly superfluous That Abraham received Circumcision under this very notion as a Seal of the righteousness which he had through faith that he might be the Father of all them who being circumcised did believe is expresly affirmed by the Apostle all that can be doubted of is whether he was in regard of the use and end of it as received by himself a pattern to all to whom he was a Father But now this is undeniable in as much as his paternity or fatherhood as I may so speak in part if not principally confisted in his being a pattern and example to all tow hom he was a Father This title of a Father is in a peculiar and special manner given to and predicated of Abraham in this very regard that he was set up
Houshold there is not the least intimation of the conversion of any besides Lydia her self yea there is as we have already seen tantum non a certainty that at least some of her Houshold were baptized upon the account of her faith and not their own personal profession and as for the Gaolers Houshold it doth not certainly appear that any in or of his said to be baptized were converted antecedent to that their baptism It is true there are two passages urged to prove that they were such of his as were wrought upon by the Word as spoken by Paul First It is said verse 32. That they that is Paul and Silas spake to him the Word of the Lord and to all that were in his house Whence it is supposed that all that were in his House and consequently his said to he baptized ver 33. must needs be such as were capable of having the Word preached to them But to that four things may be replyed First It is uncertain whether this speaking of the Word of which Luke speaks was antecedent to the baptism of the Gaoler and his House things are not alwayes declared in that order in which they were done Secondly Suppose that be granted yet it cannot be concluded from thence that there were none incapable of having the Word spoken to them in his House See a like Instance Deut. 31. verse last it is said Moses spake in the ears of all the Congregation of Israel the words of this Song until they were ended Now shall we conclude there were no Infants or little Children in that Congregation The contrary is evident verse 12. Thirdly It is no way evident that the persons in his House to whom the Word was spoken were numerically the same persons said to be baptized all of his said to be baptized seems plainly to intend different persons from all those in his House to whom the Word was spoken But fourthly Suppose the person were numerically the same yet the having the Word spoken to them will not conclude their conversion by that Word the Word may be spoken to those that are not converted by it so that this passage doth no way evince the conversion of any in his House besides himself alone antecedent to his and his Housholds baptism I do not say absolutely there were none but it cannot be certainly concluded that there were any Secondly The other passage urged to prove the conversion of the Houshould antecedent to their baptism is that verse 34 where it is said according as we read He rejoyced believing in God with all his Houshold but the Greek runs exactly thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He rejoyced with all his house he believing in God Now his house might rejoyce though none were savingly wrought upon but the Gaoler himself and indeed the Apostles laying the ground of their joy in his personal believing they rejoyced he believing in God doth plainly intimate that as yet the Gaoler alopne did believe for why else should he not say they believing in God or at least that the benefit which was the matter and occasion of their joy did accrew unto them through his faith 'T is not for nothing that the Apostle makes his personal believing in God the ground of the joy of the whole House so that it doth not certainly appear that any in the Gaolers house did believe antecedent to their baptism And for the Houshold of Stephanus there is nothing evidencing their or any of their faith antecedent to their baptism 'T is true we read that his Houshold did addict themselves to the Ministry of the Saints 1 Cor. 16.15 But whether these said to addict themselves to this Ministry were converted before or after his imbracement of the Gospel and his and his Housholds baptism is altogether uncertain Thirdly observe That suppose some particular persons in or of these Houses said to be baptized might be converted antecedent to their baptism yet from thence it cannot be concluded that in others Houses it must needs be so also not yet that the Housholds as generally considered were not baptized upon the account of the Parents faith as suppose there were any converted in the Gaolers House antecedent to their baptism from thence it cannot be concluded that any in Lydia's House were converted antecedent to their baptism so suppose there should be some of the Gaolers House converted before their baptism yet to argue from thence that Baptism was not administred to the Houses as more generally taken as the Houses of believing Parents is a meet non sequitur So that suppose it could be proved which yet it cannot be that some in or of some one or other of the Houses said to be baptized were baptzed upon the account of their own personal profession of Faith and Repentance yet that would not overthrow the evidence that the Instances of any Housholds being baptized as a Houshold of a Believer gives in to the truth contended for the probability of any one Houshold yea or any one in or of any one Houshold being baptized as the Houshold or as of the Houshold of such a Parent carryes alike evidence to the truth pleaded for as taken abstractly in it self as it would do in case there were the same probability that all these Housholds and all in them were baptized as such Housholds From the whole of what hath been said touching these several Instances and that as taken abstractly in themselves I shall not doubt to conclude that there is at least a very great probability that in primitive times Houses were together with their converted Parents baptized and that meeerly as the Houses of such Parents And yet further for the making it more probable that these Housholds said to be baptized at least some in or of them were indeed baptized not upon the account of a personal profession of their own Faith and Repentance but upon the account of their Parents Faith as received into the same Covenant-state with them let these things be confidered First How exceeding improbable it is that in case none could be admitted into communion with the Body of Christ by Baptism but upon a personal profession of Faith and Repentance the Sacred Historian writing by divine inspiration would mention and leave upon record the baptism of any one Houshold without giving the least intimation of the conversion of at least one or more in or of that Houshold that so the ground of the baptism of the rest might have been clearly inferred That the Covenant together with the Sign and Token of it should be of the same latitude and extent in the administration and application of it that it was under the first Testament might be rationally expected by all men hence it may be well supposed thta our Lord Jesus Christ who is expresly said to be faithful in all his House as Moses was in his would if not have given some express and positive discovery of his will as to the baptism of
did So that the Minor Proposition is undoubtedly true whence the Conclusion will undoubtedly follow My second Argument is this If the promise of Salvation may and ought to be applied by the dispencers of the Gospel to believing Parents both with reference to themselves and their Children meerly as such that is as believing Parents without consideration has to the personal faith and repentance of any in or of their houses then the promise of Salvation muse needs belong to them and their houses without consideration had to the personal saith and repentance of any in or of their houses but the former is true therefore the latter Certainly if a Minister of the Gospel may apply the promise of Salvation not only to believing Parents themselves but to their houses then that promise belongs not only to them but to their houses Ministers may not apply promises any other wayes then as they belong to those to whom the application is made Now that the promise of Salvation may and ought to be applyed in this extent and latitude not only to believing Parents themselves but to their respective houses and that meerly as such without consideration had to the personal faith and repentance of any in or of their houses is evident past all rational contradiction by the Apostles proposing the promise in this extent and latitude to the Jaylor As the Apostle did proplse it to the Jaylor as a motive to him to believe it might and ought to have been applied to him upon his actual believing he might have been assured that now he and his house should be saved yet in that way and according to that method or upon the terms hold forth in the Covenant of Grace an account of which we have already given And that the Apostle proposes this promise in the extent and latitu de before exprest to the Jaylor upon condition of his own believing without consideration had to the personal faith and repentance of any in or of his house is evident from the express words of the Text Thou shalt be saved and thy house and consequently might have been applied to him as a Believer upon his actual believing and hence it appears that this promise did not appertain to him alone it was not a priviledge peculiar to him to have his house under the same promise with himself but a priviledge common to all believing Barents Quatenus ipsum concludes de omni The only Objection I have met with is this That as the Promise was made conditionally to the Jaylor himself so to his house that is as the Apostle promised to him that if he believed he should be saved so he promised to him with reference to his house that if they believed they should be saved according to the interpretation given of that promise of Peter Acts 2.39 To that I answer That though it is readily granted that the promise as externally proposed was conditionally both to himself and his house yet I say that his own believing did give his house an actual right to and interest in the promise yet to be fulfilled according to the terms of the Covenant is evident because there could be no reason of the Apostles adding that other branch of the promise as a motive to him to believe unless by his believing a peculiar good which can be nothing else but this right to and interest in the promise did accrew to his house It had been a stronger motive for the Apostle to have said Believe in the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved and all the Town or Country yea all the World If the Apostle had not intended a peculiar good in relation to the salvation of his house redounding to them by his believing there had been no more reason for him to mention his house than for him to have mentioned the whole Town or Country or whole World in as much as thev should all be saved upon condition of their believmg And hence whereas when this consideration is urged to prove That the Apostle Peter holds forth and declares the Covenant and promises thereof in this latitude and extent to those awakened Jews Acts. 2.29 It is replyed That there were other Reasons of his mentioning their Children then the asserting their right to and interest in the Covenant and I romise thereof That shift for so I shall call it can have no place here for if it should be granted that the Apostle Peter might mention the Children of these Jews with respect to that imprecation they were under recorded in Matth. 27.25 ir wutg respect to that first offer and tender of Christ and the grace of the Gospel to be made to the Jews yet there could be no such reason of the Apostle mentioning the Jaylors house they were under no such imprecation neither had they any priviledge above others in point of the offers and tenders of Salvation to be made to them and therefore the only reason imaginable of the Apostles mentioning of his house was to assure him that upon his believing he should injoy the promise of Salvation in the extent and latitude it was at the first establishment of the Covenant given unto Abraham had not the promise extended to his house as well as to himself personally considered there had been no reason for the Apostle to mention his house and tell him that not only himself but his house should be saved had not a peculiar good redounded to his house by his believing It had been a more effectual motive to have told him that the whole Town should have been saved in as much as then his house had been included and he had had a further intimation of the probability of other of his Friends Relations and Acquaintance Salvation Secondly I answer If we compare this promise of Paul to the Jaylor with that forementioned passage of Christ concerning Zacheus his house 't is evident the Apostle propoundeth this promise in both branches of it to him upon the alone condition of his personal believing and his meaning is that in case he himself should believe he and his house should be saved that is as Peter as hath been already observed expounds it the promise of Salvation would be to him and his house and that this is his meaning appears from that parallel passage of Christ Christ tells Zacheus Salvation was come to his house upon his own believing and that upon that very ground or for that very reason because he now was a Son of Abraham and upon the same ground and for the same reason we must suppose that the Apostle makes this promise to the Jaylor the Apostle is to be understood according to that of Christ it is as if he had said believe in the Lord Jesus and thereby thou wilt become a Son of Abraham and as so related to him shall enjoy the promises in the same exten and latitude in which it was made to him at the first establishment of it God will be a God to
Object 1. First That Christ is said to be the Saviour of all men 1 Tim. 4.10 To be the Saviour of the world John 4.42 and therefore though it should be granted that the Infant-seed of believing Parents are under the Promise of being saved by Christ it will not follow that they were looked upon as appertaining to or as Members of his mystical Body Answ To that I answer that though Christ in a large sence may be and is in Scripture said to be the Saviour of all men and the Saviour of the world yet no particular or individual person is actually and that for the present as personally considered under any Promise of being saved by him especially taking Salvation of spiritual and eternal Salvation but such who are of or do appertain to his mystical Body therefore it is said of these Ephesians before their imbracement of Christ They were strangers to the Covenants of promise Ephes 2.12 They had nothing to do with the Promises of spiritual and saving Mercies and as they were strangers to the Covenants of promise so they were without hope without any grounded hope interest in the Promises being the alone true ground of all hope of spiritual and eternal Salvation so that interest in the Promise of Salvation declares the persons so interessed to appertain to or to be of the mystical Body of Christ all others being strangers to the Promises and therefore without hope Object 2 Secondly It is objected That when it is said Christ is the Saviour of his Body it is only meant of his mystical body as invisible and consequently in case this Scripture will prove that the Infant-seed of believing Parents as having the Promise of Salvation appertaining to them do appertain to the mystical Body of Christ it will prove that they do universally appertain to his Mystical Body as invisible which it will be said we our selves deny and therefore this Scripture is impertinently brought to prove their relation to the mystical Body of Christ as visible which only speaks of his mystical Body as invisible Answ To that I answer This Objection will receive a more full answer by and by where I shall meet with it again at present I shall only say 't is evident the Apostle speaks of the mystical Body of Christ as visible and not meerly as invisible for let it be observed that Body and Church in this discourse of the Apostle are Synonimies or words exactly answering one another in sence and signification whom he intends by Body he intends by Church and so on the other hand whom he intends by Church he intends by Body Now this Church or Body of Christ of which he is said here to be the Saviour was that Church or Body of which the Ephesians were an homogeneal Part that is a part of the same kind with the whole hence the Apostle speaks of them as joynt Members with himself of this Body verse 20. for we are Members of his Body of his flesh and of his bones Mark he takes in the Ephesians universally and indefinitely one as well as another as joynt Members with him of this Body So Ephes 2.19 Now therefore ye are no longer Strangers and Forreigners but fellow-Citizens with the Saints and of the Houshold of God To be fellow-Citizens with the Saints and of the Houshold of God is all one with being of this Church or Body Now it is evident the Apostle did not suppose that every indivipual person of this Church were Members of the invisible Body of Christ what he saith Acts 20 30. plainly declares the contrary Now then this Church or Body of which the Apostle saith Christ was the Head and Saviour being that Church or Body of which the Ephesians were an homogeneal part and they not being supposed by the Apostle universally to appertain to the Church or Body of Christ as invisible It will undoubtedly follow that he doth not speak of the Church or Body of Christ meerly as invisible but as visible Christ is in Scripture said to be the Saviour of his Church or Body as visibly considered and the Infant-seed of believing Parents being under a Promise of Salvation by him or of being saved by him they must needs by the Apostles be owned and looked upon as Members of that Body of which he is the Saviour none as I have said being under a Promise of being saved by him but such as do appertain to that Body of which he is the Saviour Secondly All those who under the Gospel administration and that as personally considered are the actual Subjects of that Promise wherein God ingaged himself to be a God to Abraham and his Seed in their Generations were owned and looked upon by the Apostles as appertaining to or as Members of the mystical Body of Christ as visible But the Infant seed of believing Parents under the Gospel administration and that as personally considered are the actual Subjects of that Promise therefore c. The Major is undeniably proved by that positive Assertion of the Apostle Galatians 3.16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the Promises made he saith not to is Seeds as of many but to thy Seed which is Christ that is Christ mystical Now if that Promise were made to Christ and to Christ only as we see the Apostle denyes it to be made to any other it was not made to Seeds but to Seed to thy Seed which saith the Apostle is Christ I say if this Promise was made only to Christ it will undeniably follow that whosoever that Promise was made unto or to whom that Promise may by Scripture-warrant be applyed as the Actual Subjects of it and that as personally considered they must needs by the Apostles be looked upon and owned as appertaining to or as Members of the mystical Body of Christ and therefore let none evade this plain evidence to the deceiving themselves or others by saying that there are Promises made to others that are not Members of the mystical Body of Christ Let it be remembred the Argument speaks not of Promises in the general nor of any kind of Promises but of this Promise in special nor doth it speak of this Promise as an indefinite Promise made to any sort or species of persons collectively taken where 〈◊〉 single or individual person can be said to be an actual Subject of it as personally considered and therefore so produce any such Instances is wholly impertinent as to the Argument in hand let it be shewed that any person whether old or young might according to Scripture be accounted an actual Subject of this Promise and that as personally considered who yet was not by the Apostles owned or looked upon as appertaining to or as a Member of the mystical Body of Christ till which be done which I shall not doubt to affirm is impossible to be done we may undoubtedly conclude that all those that are the actual Subjects of that Promise as personally considered were owned and
that I say his meaning must be this repent that you may have an interest in the Promise and upon your repentance be baptized for the remission of sin for then the Promise is to you that is you then will have an actual right to and interest in it So that take the meaning of the Apostle which way you will it is all one as to my Present purpose in as much as he grounds his Exhortation to Baptism upon actual interest in the Promise or makes that the motive to excite and stir them up to Baptism now interest in the Promise being the ground upon which or the motive by which the Apostle presseth them to Baptism it must needs be a sufficient ground for the application of Baptism and consequently whoever hath an interest in the Promise may duly and rightly have Baptisme applyed unto them Object But it will be objected The Apostle conjoyns Repentance and Baptisme in his Exhortation and therefore they cannot be separated in practice Answ 1. To that I answer two things First That though the Apostle conjoyns these two duties in his Exhortation yea though he should ground his Exhortation to the practice of them both upon the same foundation viz. interest in and right to the Promise yet that doth not necessarily imply an inseparable connexion between them in practice two duites may be conjoyned in an Exhortation and both moved to upon one and the same ground and yet be separable in their practice and then either of these duties may be pressed to and answerably practiced apart upon that ground let us see it in these two duties of Repentance and Baptism exhorted to by the Apostle it is evident the Apostle exhorts to these two duties with reference to two distinct ends the one viz. Repentance with reference to their obtaining an actual interest in the Promise suppose that were wanting or with reference to the removal of a special bar which at present lay in the way of their Baptism supposing them to have a present interest in it The other viz. Baptism with reference to the confirmation of their faith in or their assurance of their enjoyment of the good promised upon supposition of a precedent interest in the Promise Now when these two ends are separated as in respect of many they may be sometimes Repentance may and ought to be pressed to and practised when Baptism is unnecessary as in case of a Believers falling into sin after Baptism So on the other hand Baptism may be exhorted to and practised when yet Repentance or the profession of Repentance is no way necessary as in the case of Christs Baptism so in John Baptist's case supposing him he being sanctified in the womb to have kept up the due exercise of Grace and Holiness from his infancy Now in these cases these two duties are inseparable in practise and in such cases either of them may be distinctly and severally pressed to upon this ground what is a sufficient ground to bottom an Exhortation upon to the practise of two duties must needs supposing these duties are inseparable in their practise be a sufficient ground to bottom an Exhortation to either of them apart upon so that though these two duties are conjoyned by the Apostle in his Exhortation and both exhorted to upon one and the same ground yet they being separable in practise either of them may be exhorted to and practised upon that ground according to the case and condition of the parties concerned in them whoever hath an interest in the Promise in case of the commission of any sin may be exhorted to repentance upon that sole ground of his interest in the Promise so whoever hath an interest in the Promise may and ought to be exhorted to Baptisme upon that sole ground of his interest in the Promise an Exhortation to both taken either conjunctively or severally may be rightfully grounded upon the persons interest in the Promise Hence secondly I answer Let it be granted that the Apostle exhorts those trembling Jews to repentance as a necessary prerequisite to their Baptism yet that was only either in order to the confirming continuing and visibly manifesting their precedent interest in the Promise or removing that special bar that lay in the way of their Baptism 't was their interest in the Promise that was the proper ground upon which the Apostle exhorts them to Baptism Repentance is no further necessary unto Baptism then as it is a part of the condition of interest in the Promise and an external discovery of that interest to the Administrators of Baptism as in the case of persons afore unconverted or for the removing some special bar lying in the way of Baptism as in case of Believers fallen into sin afore the application of Baptism unto them in case interest in the Promise may be known when Repentance is not upon such accounts incumbent as a duty that is a sufficient ground upon which to move unto and apply Baptism And that which strongly perswades us to judge that the Apostle exhorts to Repentance not as simply and absolutely necessary to Baptism at all times and in all cases but only as necessary in their special case and in cases parallel with theirs is not only his grounding his Exhortation to both these duties upon one and the same ground thereby plainly declaring their rightful practice as conjunctively when the case so requires so separately or each a part by themselves when either of them is not necessary or practicable by the parties concerned in them upon that sole ground but the whole reference that Baptism hath to the Promise or the Souls interest in it Baptism hath no necessary reference unto Repentance as already performed so as its antecedency should be indispensably required in order to a right application of it neither hath repentance any necessary reference to Baptism so as that Baptism may not be administred but upon supposition of its antecedency as we see in the case of our Lord Jesus Christ and John Baptist as before noted but Baptism hath a direct reference to the Promise and the Souls interest in that and therefore when repentance is required as a necessary prerequisite to Baptism it is only upon some of the accounts before mentioned 't is interest in the Promise that the Apostle grounds his Exhortation to Baptism upon and consequently interest in the Promise is a sufficient ground for the application of Baptism Now that the Infant-seed of believing Parents have a right to and interest in that promise hath been already proved and reveives no little confirmation from this Text of the Apostle The Promise is to you and to your Children but my design is not Actum agere to do that which others have done already I shall therefore only say that suppose it might admit of a doubt whether Children here are to be taken qua Children as the Children of such Parents as thess the Apostle speaks to or whether their right to the Promise