A Christian, Chapter 11
CHAP. XI. Wherein is conſidered the method of God in the Old Teſtament, of adminiſtring Ordinances in Families, and baptizing Houſholds in the New Teſtament; and how far it contributes to Infant-baptiſm.
IT'S not a ſlight thing to conſider, how that ever ſince the Fall this hath been an uſual method of God in adminiſtration of the Covenant, and priviledges of grace, to make it run through families and houſholds of Believers, as the ſpecial veins: Hence families, as they were the firſt natural ſocieties, ſo they were the firſt Churches; the Covenant and the priviledges of it was among them; from Adam to Abraham it went on thus: And when the Covenant in Abrahams time came to be more expreſly opened, and fairer expounded, God goes on ſtill in the ſame method, makes the Covenant with Abraham and his houſhold; only the family was enlarged, it became a greater houſhold, according to the vaſtneſs of the extent of the Covenant; yet ſtill it was diſpenſed as to a family. Now if you come to the New Teſtament, there you ſee God going on in the ſame method, as if he had caſt by an eternal decree this platform: Baptiſm, the New Teſtament Ordinance, is adminiſtred according to the ſame deſign to families and houſholds. Let us conſider what Chriſt himſelf ſaith to Zacheus, Luk. 19. who was a Gentile, and one of the chief Publicans, upon occaſion of this mans converſion, to open the nature and continuance of the Covenant to the Gentiles in the ſame form as it was to Abraham; This day is ſalvation come to thy houſe, foraſmuch as he alſo is a ſon of Abraham: Here is the ſame language uſed in adminiſtration of Circumciſion in the Old Teſtament; and the ſame reaſon, foraſmuch as he alſo (foreign) is a ſon of Abraham: What can be drawn from this place more proper then theſe concluſions?
1. That as ſoon as ever he was converted and believed, Chriſt applies the promiſe to his houſe; if there were not ſomething more in it, he would have only ſaid, Salvation is come to thee.
2. It's clear that he opens the Covenant made with Abraham; not only to himſelf, but his houſe; and argues from his being a ſon of Abraham, that therefore the Covenant is not only made with him, but with his houſe, that is, his ſeed; it were enough for to call him the ſon of Abraham, and to ſay, ſalvation is come to himſelf: but to mention his houſe, together with himſelf, and give this as a reaſon, becauſe he is the ſon of Abraham, is as much as to ſay, the priviledges of the Covenant is the ſame to you and your houſe, as it was to Iſaac and Jacob, foraſmuch as he alſo is a ſon of Abraham, as well as they. Now for Chriſt to ſpeak in this dialect, and to tell them of their houſholds, and of favour to them in the beginning of the Goſpel, and yet at the ſame time exclude their Infants from all outward ſigns of the promiſe, which they ever had in the darkeſt daies of grace, is a ſtrange policy, unſutable to the ſimplicity of Jeſus Chriſt.
Concerning this continued method of God, though this Zacheus be a ſingular, yet he is not the only example, if you read all along the Acts of the Apoſtles; theſe which had houſholds, the promiſe runs with a gracious entail. Acts 11.14. Cornelius hath the promiſe to him and his houſe. Acts 16.15. Lydia was baptized, and her houſhold. Ver. 31. the Apoſtle exhorts the Jaylor to believe, and he ſhould be ſaved, and his whole houſe; Juſt as God made the Covenant with Abraham, Walk before me, and be thou perfect, Gen. 17.1, 2.7. And I will be a God to thee, and thy ſeed, or houſhold. In ver. 33. its ſaid, he was baptized, and all his (foreign) he and all that were of him; a moſt emphatical expreſſion to ſet forth his Children, who are the natural off-ſpring, and who are properly a mans own; he changes the general phraſe of a houſe, which may ſometimes comprehend more, and comes more cloſe home; when he ſaith he was baptized, he ſaith, all his (foreign) of him; which cannot be meant of ſervants, who are our own as goods and lands are, but not of a man: but muſt firſtly and primarily referr to his Children, who are begotten of him; and it may be ſecondarily to his kindred; in the ſame phraſe you have it tranſlated, Rom. 16.10, 11. The houſhold of Ariſtobulus, the houſhold of Narciſſus: but it is, foreign, & foreign; Theſe of Ariſtobulus and Narciſſus: which muſt eſpecially be meant of their Children, and theſe that deſcended from their loyns.
The only Objection is from the following v. 34. where it is ſaid, That the Jaylor believed with all his houſe; and ſo none were baptized but Believers.
To which I anſwer, That is not a reſtriction or exception of all that were baptized, but a deſcription of the power the Word had upon all his houſe with himſelf; for he ſaid in the former verſe, that he was baptized, and with his thoſe which were begotten of him; and in this verſe he ſhews the actual influence of the Word on all his houſe likewiſe: So that the words are an after deſcription of the mighty workings of the Goſpel, not only to himſelf, who was baptized, and ſo his; but on all his houſe beſides.
2. Others, and men of good account, do relate foreign, with all his houſe, to the Jaylors rejoycing, not to his believing; and ſo read it thus, And when he had brought them into his houſe, he ſet meat before them, and rejoyced, believing God, with all his houſe; And it may be as well referred to the one as to the other.
However it's very obſervable, That when he ſpeaks of the Apoſtles preaching, and their believing, he names his houſe in the largeſt term; v. 32. They preached the Word to him, and all that were (foreign) to all that were in his houſe: But when he ſpeaks of baptizing, he ſaith (that you may be ſure his Children were baptized) that he, and all of him, or all his, were baptized. Now he doth not ſay, all that believed, but all his were baptized: though there is no doubt but all that believed were baptized alſo.
But if there were no ſuch emphatical expreſſion, as is by the holy Ghoſt in the baptizing of the Jaylors houſe; yet there is enough to make forth an example of Infant-baptiſm from the very notion of baptizing whole houſholds, ſo frequent in the Goſpel.
1. It will be very ſtrange confidence to affirm, that in all theſe houſes there were no Infants, or little Children.
2. There is greater probability, and ſtronger grounds to believe, when he names houſholds, that there were little ones in them, then that there were not.
3. Eſpecially when the word, houſe, in all languages in the world is moſt uſually put for Children of the houſe, who maintain and keep it up; and ſo often in Scripture, Gen. 30.30. and 45.18, 19. N. 3.15. Pſal. 115.12, 13. 1 Tim. 5.8.
4. Where whole houſes are baptized, there Infants are not excluded, if they be in the houſe; and if not excluded, they are included; they cannot be excluded, for they are principal parts of the houſe; and if only adulti, or grown perſons ſhould be meant, when Children are named, that would be to exclude Infants from being Children, as well as from being parts of the houſhold.
When Abraham and his houſe were circumciſed, Abrahams Children were the principal parts of the houſe; and they were firſt circumciſed, and then his ſervants, and all in his houſhold were circumciſed alſo, being Proſeſſors of the ſame faith; for Abraham had a godly family: Yet upon a different account; the one by vertue of Abrahams Covenant, which was made primarily with him & his Children, with all his family likewiſe; as they profeſt Abrahams faith, and ſerved Abrahams God; and ſo it may be eaſily conceived how whole houſholds were baptized in the New Teſtament; the Children as in the Fathers Covenant; the Servants and others by vertue of the ſame profeſſion: And in this ſenſe there will be no ambiguity in the phraſe of baptizing whole houſholds.
Laſtly, That the Apoſtle ſhould borrow an expreſſion always uſed in the Old Teſtament to include Children eſpecially, and make uſe of it in the New to exclude them, would be ſtrange but to conjecture: Now when ever the houſhold is ſpoken of in the Old Teſtament, it always includes Children. This is ſtill more for the baptizing of Infants, then any thing they can ſay againſt it; and compared with all the former Scriptures, may make up a full demonſtration to a judicious conſcience.