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
as at first made to Abraham with reference to his Seed it was made to his Seed in their Generations that is to them and to their Seed or their Children as immediately descending from them for so the Covenant was established not only with Abraham himself but with him and his Seed in their Generations and in the same extent and latitude the Promises of the Covenant must be interpreted and understood as the Covenant was established with Abraham and his Seed in their Generations so the Promises of the Covenant were to him and to his Seed in their Generations and answerably I have so exprest my self throughout the ensuing Discourse And here let two things be carefully observed First That the Promise is made to Abraham's whole Seed both natural and mystical in one and the same tenour Hence secondly Look how the Promise was to be understood as referring to either kinds or species of his Seed so it is to be understood as referring to the other as it was to be understood as referring to his natural Seed so it it is to be understood as referring to his mystical Seed Now that it was as referring to Abraham's natural Seed to be understood as including Parents and Children is evident partly because the Promise as thus made as referring to them will admit of no other sence or meaning consistent with the truth and faithfulness of God in his Promises partly because God by his after dealing with the Jews declares that to be the sence and meaning of it and partly because the Prophets so expound it as to be fulfilled in Gospel times Now this Promise being so to be understood as referring to Abraham's natural Seed it must needs be so understood as referring to his mystical Seed Secondly This second Proposition is further evident from the Promises and Prophesies of the old Testament relating to new Testament times Thirdly From the express letter of new Testament which affirms positively that the Blessing not this or that part of the Blessing but the Blessing simply and absolutely is come upon believing Gentiles by Christ Fourthly From several passages in the new Testament which though they do not in express terms hold forth this settlement of this Promise upon believing Gentiles yet do plainly imply it For satisfaction in all which things I am necessitated to refer the Reader to the Discourse it self where he will find them largely spoken to These two former Propositions being established the third as I judge will be questioned but by few and it is evident thus for as Abraham's whole Seed are in their Generations that is both Parents and immediate Children under the Promise so they are under the Obligation of the Command to keep the Covenant that is the Sign or Token of the Covenant whence its evident that as the Covenant that Abraham's Seed in their Generations then were or after should be received into had and was to have a Sign or Token annexed to the administration of it so that it alwayes was and is the duty of Parents in Covenant as to receive and bear that Sign or Token themselves so to take care that their Infant-seed as joynt Heirs with themselves of the same Promises should receive and bear it and consequently that believing Gentiles they being the mystical Seed of Abraham are still under the Obligation of this Command and ought to be baptized themselves Baptism being the present Sign and Token of the Covenant into which they are received so to see that their Infant-seed be also baptized and as the Promise and Command are of an equal extent so interest in this Promise declares the person so interested to have such a relation to the mystical Body of Christ as is an undoubted ground of implantation and incorporation into that Body as visible by Baptism the Promise is made unto Christ and only to him either personally or mystically considered hence whoever have an interest in this Promise they must undoubtedly have so far relation to Christ as will warrant their implantation into him as mystically considered by Baptism that being the only means appointed by Christ for the implantation of any into his mystical Body And further we find the Apostle grounds his Exhortation to Baptism upon interest either in this or some other equivalent Promise which he would never have done had not interest in that Promise been a sufficient ground for the application or reception of Baptism but I must come to a close And thus Reader though there are some other things I would willingly have spoken to yet I shall only acquaint thee with two things and request two or three things of thee and then dismiss thee to the serious perusal of what is here tendered to thee First That which I would acquaint thee with is That whereas there are several Scriptures usually insisted upon for the proof of the lawfulness of this practice of Infant-baptism which thou wilt find in the insuing Treatise either not at all or very little touched upon the reason is not that I judged them impertinent or insufficient for the proof of that practice I judge they are full and pertinent and some of them especially that 1 Cor. 7.14 as managed in special by Mr. Baxter unanswerable but know that I do but glean after others and therefore have especially insisted both in the Arguments I have managed and Objections I have answered upon such Scriptures as have been more briefly touched upon by them and would desire the Reader as he hath opportunity to take what they have said from those Scripture for his more full confirmation supposing any doubts may yet remain in his mind in the Truth that I in common with them have pleaded for Secondly Another thing Reader that I would acquaint thee with is this That whereas 't is possible thou mayest have met with some Objections which are not here taken notice of the reason is because I judged them no way able to counter-ballance in the judgments of any of a competent understanding the evidence produced in confirmation of what I have asserted or else because they wholly concern others and not my self in the way I have proceeded in That which I would request of thee is First That thou take the three subordinate Propositions in that order I have laid them down and fully weigh the first before thou proceed to the second and then throughly weigh the second before thou proceed to the third to be satisfied in the truth of the first will conduce not a little to thy entertaining the evidence produced for the confirmation of the second and to be well established in these two will much facillitate thy imbracement of the last wherein the main Truth contended for is contained Secondly Let me request a favourable construction of what weakness appears in the management of the whole Debate thou wilt soon find that the Discourse here put into thy hand comes abroad in a very mean dress and not without many incongruities in
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
mystical Body as visible and consequently Quod erat demonstrandum were either by the Apostles themselves or by some others by their allowance direction or approbation admitted and implanted into that Body by Baptism Now as a close of this Argument it may not be altogether unseasonable to shew in a few words it needs not many what respect we have to that mystical Relation wherein the Infant-seed of believing Parents stand towards Abraham as his Seed in the application of Baptism unto them the consideration of which I afore referred to the handling of this last Proposition and I know not where to touch upon it so seasonably as here And for this let it be noted that in the application of Baptism we have a direct and primary respect to their state as joynt Subjects with their Parents of the Promises of the Covenant the Covenant and Promises thereof being entred with and made unto Abraham's Seed in their Generations as with and to the Parents personally considered so with and to their Seed as such Hence both Parents and Seed are to have the Token of the Covenant applyed unto them they being joynt Subjects of the same Covenant and Promises they are alike to partake of the Sign and Token of the Covenant Hence look what respect we have to the mystical Relation of believing Parents to Abraham in the application of Baptism unto them the same respect we have to the mystical Relation of their Infant seed to Abraham in the application of Baptism unto them The third Argument If interest in that grand Promise of the Covenant wherein God ingaged to be a God to Abraham and his Seed in their Generations be alone and by it self a sufficient ground upon which persons may and ought to be exhorted and moved unto Baptism then all those who have an interest in that Promise may and ought to be baptized But interest in that Promise is alone and by it self a sufficient ground upon which persons may and ought to be exhorted and moved unto Baptism therefore all those who have an interest in that Promise and consequently Infants they having an interest in it may and ought to be baptized The Consequence in the Major Proposition of this Prosyllogism cannot be denied for if a Minister may exhort or move one to be baptized upon this sole ground that he hath an interest in that Promise he may and ought to apply Baptism to him upon that sole ground otherwise persons might be duly exhorted to a duty which would be unlawful for them to practice which would be absurd Therefore 't is the Minor only which I suppose will be denyed which yet I judge will be granted by the major part of our Opposers and for the satisfaction of others let these two Scriptures be compared together and well weighed Gen. 17.9 Acts 2.38 39 saith God to Abraham Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy Seed in their Generations saith the Apostle Repent and be baptized every one of you for the remission of sin fir the Promise is to you and to your Children Now let it be diligently observed how the Holy Ghost grounds the Command or Exhortation to keep the Covenant that is the Token of the Covenant upon interest in and right to the Promises of the Covenant I will be thy God saith the Lord to Abraham and the God of thy Seed in their Generations thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy Seed in their Generations Now to what end or purpose can it be imagined that the Command to keep the Covenant should be ushered in with a therefore had not the Command some reference to the Promises immediately afore proposed And what reference can it be imagined to have but this that Gods vouchsafement of these Promises was the ground and foundation of the Command The Command was given upon no other account or conlideration but their interest in the foregoing Promises and the use the thing commanded should be of to them respective to these Promises so that I say the Command is grounded upon their interest in the Promises having these Promises Thou shalt therefore keep my Covenant In like manner the Apostle grounds his Exhortation to Baptism the present Token of the Covenant or enforceth it by the consideration of right to and interest in the Promise be baptized for the Promise is unto you And that the truth of what we affirm may more fully appear let us enquire into two things First What Promise it was the Apostle saith was unto them Secondly What the meaning of the Apostle is in these words The Promise is to you First For the first And thus the Promise here said by the Apostle to be unto them must needs be some Promise which is common to all that are called of God and yet peculiar and proper to them and their Children hence it could not be either the Promise of sending Christ or the Promise of the extraordinary gift of the Spirit for as the former is not proper and peculiar to such as God calls so the latter is not common to them all and therefore it must needs be either that grand Promise of the Covenant or some other of the essence and substance of the Covenant as remission of sin or the like which is all one as to our present purpose Secondly For the second And thus I suppose all parties must necessarily and answerably do concenter in one of these two interpretations either that the Apostles meaning is that the Promise was to them so as that they had a present actual and personal interest in it which seems most agreeable to the letter of the words or else that at present the Promise was to them only by way of offer and tender but would be unto them so as that they should have an actual and personal interest in it upon the Lords calling of them or which is all one upon their repentance and that the Apostle doth eye and intend their personal interest in the Promise either as at present according to the first sense of the words or future to be obtained by their repentance according to the latter is evident because otherwise the having of the Promise to them would have been no sufficient ground for the Apostles Exhortation to Baptism neither could he rationally make it a motive to them to be baptized so that according to the latter interpretation of the Apostles words 't is as if he should say the Promise is to you by way of offer and tender at present therefore repent whereby you shall have an actual interest in it and thereupon be baptized and that the Apostle exhorts to Repentance only and not both to Baptism and Repentance in order to their having an actual interest in the Promise is past all doubt in as much as Baptism must necessarily follow upon and not precede interest in the Promise as a means either by it self or as a joynt means with Repentance to obtain that interest so
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