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
not agreed among themselves some granting that Ishmael was intended in that Promise and consequently that he was a party in that Covenant but deny that that Covenant was a Covenant of Grace Others granting that that was a Covenant of Grace but deny Ishmael to be a party in it whence it appears that in all these three Assertions viz. that Ishmael was intended in that Promise that the Covenant in which the Promise is contained is a Covenant of Grace That the Covenant of Grace cannot be broken we have the suffrage of some of our Opposites as they are taken severally But you will say They all agree 〈…〉 be all true taken conjunctively It is tâ—â—â— they do so and where their mistake lies either as 〈◊〉 what we affirm or as to the truth it self shall be now considered First And I shall first shew in what sence we hold and maintain the Covenant of Grace to be an immutable and unchangeable Covenant a Covenant that cannot be broken Secondly Lay down some Propositions for the vindicating the truth asserted in this first Proposition for carrying any appearance of repugnancy to that Principle held and maintained by us in the sence it is held and maintained by us concerning the immutability of the Covenant of Grace For the first and thus we must observe a twofold distinction First We must distinguish between an external and visible and an internal and invisible being in Covenant or between the Covenant of Grace as externally and visibly and as internally and invisibly plighted or mutually entred between God and men that there is an external and visible being in Covenant or that there is an external and visible plighting or mutual entring of Covenant between God and men where yet there is not an internal and invisible being in Covenant nor any internal mutual entring Covenant between God and men is evident through the whole Scripture and is so demonstratively proved by others especially Mr. Cobbett of New-England that it is wholly superfluous to add any thing I shall therefore only say that unless we do grant this distinction we must hold that either Christ hath no visible Body Church or People in the World or else that some may be of the visible Body Church or People of Christ who yet are not in any sence in the Covenant of Grace the former sure none will affirm and the granting the latter will grant what I contend for as will appear in the process of our discourse Secondly We must distinguish between being in Covenant through a personal acceptation of the terms of the Covenant and ingaging with God in a Covenant way and being in Covenant by vertue of the gratious tenour of the Covenant it self as made with Abraham and his Seed in their generations that there is a being in Covenant by a personal acceptation of the terms of the Covenant and ingaging with God in a Covenant way will be denied by none and that there is a being in Covenant or being under the promises of the Covenant by vertue of the gracious tenour of the Covenant it self will I hope sufficiently appear from the proof of this and our next Proposition Now when we say the Covenant of Grace is an immutable and unchangeable Covenant a Covenant that cannot be broken we intend it of the Covenant as personally and that intnely and sincerely entred by a truly regenerate Soul and not of the Covenant as only externally and unsincerely entred by Hypocrites nor of the Covenant as made with believing Parents with reference to their natural Seed and the meaning of what is affirmed concerning the immutability and unchangeableness of the Covenant of Grace is only this that when once a Soul is savingly wrought upon to a rightly closing in with Christ and a saving closing with the terms of the Covenant that Soul shall never totally and finally fall away so as to suffer an absolute and total loss of that Grace wrought in it nor be absolutely cast out of a Covenant state and relation God-ward whether these promises upon the warrant of which this immutability and unchangeableness of the Covenant is afferted and maintained will prove any more shall be considered at least so far as concerns my present purpose by and by Having then given the sence in which we hold the Covenant of Grace to be immutable and unchangeable I proceed to the second thing promised the Propositions and they are these First That this Covenant now established between God and Abraham and his Seed in their generations which I grant yea affirm that it was a Covenant of Grace the same in substance that Believers are still under was and still is a conditional Covenant Let not that term conditional offend I intend no more than what I suppose will on all hands be granted viz. That as God promised good to Abraham with reference both to himself and his Seed in their generations so he required the performance of duty as from Abraham himself so from his Seed in their respective generations In brief thus this Covenant contained promises of good from God yet with a restipulation of duty from the parties with whom it was made and unto whom the promises did appertain and this is essential to the very being of a Covenant as properly taken It is true this term Covenant is variously used in Scripture sometimes for a bare promise on Gods part sometimes for the restipulation on mans part sometimes for the token of the Covenant but these are improper significations of the word when it is properly taken it alwayes signifies a mutual compact between God and man wherein God ingageth himself by promise to them and ingageth them to the performance of what himself hath constituted to be their duty a Covenant in general when properly taken and consequently this Covenant in particular which must partake of the general nature of Covenants every Species must partake of its Genus being quiddam complexum implying two or more parties covenanting so two parties covenanted the giving of some good on the one part and the return of some performance on the other and that as indispensably necessary to the preservation of the Covenant inviolate on each part Secondly That this restipulation or condition on Abraham's part did concern him both as a single person and as a Parent standing in a parental relation towards his Seed taken in as joynt parties with himself into covenant my meaning is evident Abraham stood in a double capacity as a single party with whom God entred covenant and as a father of children to whom the promises of the Covenant did in common with himself appertain Now as Abraham as a single person in covenant was to accept of and perform the conditions of the Covenant he was in that capacity ingaged to by God so as a parent he had something of duty incumbent upon him with reference to his Seed as immediately descending from his own loins and as his faithful performance of that duty incumbent
their Seed are incapable of what Abraham and his natural Seed were capable of 't is strange how it is possible for any man to conceit such a difference either in the capacity of Parents or Children or in the dispensation of God that Believers under this present dispensation should be wholly deprived of that part of the blessing which Believers formerly injoyed and shall again injoy at the call and conversion of the Jews And for the latter Let any revelation of the will of God be produced whereby he hath withheld this part of the blessing from Believers and the controversie is at an end Till then we shall take it for granted that the blessing of Abraham is in this extent and latitude in and by Christ come upon believing Gentiles And though it is granted the direct design of the Apostle in this place is not to assert the latitude and extent of Abraham's blessing yet the indefiniteness and universality of his expression is a sufficient warrant for our interpreting the blessing in this latitude and extent pleaded for CHAP. VI. The fourth and last way of the second subordinate Propositions confirmation prosecuted Where several passages in the New Testament are considered Five Conclusions deduced from them The third principally insisted upon Where it is proved that the Promise of Salvation appertains to the Houses of believing Parents as such without consideration had to the personal Faith and Repentance of any in or of their Houses besides their own by two Arguments Objections against each Argument answered FOurthly The truth of what we affirm in this second Proposition may be further evidenced from several passages and expressions in the new Testament plainly declaring that the Infant-seed of Believers under the Gospel administration are included and taken in as joynt Subjects with their Parents of the Covenant and Promise thereof and that by vertue of their Parents relation to Abraham as his Seed Now this last way of evidencing what is pleaded for though it might require a very large discourse yet I shall but briefly touch upon it partly because the truth pleaded for is as I conceive sufficiently evidenced from what hath been already spoken and partly because others have already fully handled and improved these passages and expressions I have reference unto for the vindicating and establishing this truth I in common with them contend for that to add any thing more especially there being so little or rather nothing at all replyed to any purpose by our Opposers may seem wholly superfluous and therefore I shall only produce those passages and expressions in the new Testament and shew what evidence they give into this second Proposition in several Conclusions necessarily flowing from or grounded upon them as taken together and compared one with another The Passages and Expressions I have reference unto are these five The first is that of Christ Mark 10.10 The second is again that of Christ Luke 19.9 The third is that of Peter to the trembling Jews Acts 2.38 39. The fourth is that of Paul to the Jaylor Acts 16.31 The last is that of Paul to the Corinthians 1 Cor. 7.14 From all these Scriptures as laid together and compared one with another these five Conclusions do necessarily follow First That upon Parents believing in Christ the Promise of salvation belongs not only to themselves but to their respective Houses sayes the Apostle to the Jaylor Believe in the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved and thine House where we see the Apostle proposes it as a motive and incouragement to him to believe in that upon his believing not only himself but his house should be saved that is both he himself and his house should come under the promise of salvation or as the Apostle Peter expounds it The promise of salvation should be to him and his house he and his house should have salvation setled upon them by promise according to the true tenour of the promise which as it did not secure salvation to the Jaylor himself absolutely but upon condition of his perseverance in faith and obedience He that indures to the end shall be saved Be faithful unto the death and I will give thee a Crown of life saith Christ to that Church Rev. 2.10 from which and the like Scripture it appears that the promise of salvation that Believers themselves are under is not absolute but conditional and the same must be understood of the promises as made to their houses which through their Parents believing they are brought under And as the Apostle promises salvation to the Jaylor and his house as a motive and incouragement to him to believe so Christ tells Zacheus that upon his believing salvation was come to his house that is he and his house were now under the promise of salvation As for that conceit of some that by salvation here Christ himself should be intended as it is wholly groundless so an evident perverting of the words of Christ For first Let it be shewed where Christ is ever called salvation simply and absolutely 't is true he is called Gods salvation and Believers have appropriated him to themselves as their salvation but that is as he is Author or Essicient of Salvation This term Salvation when used simply and absolutely signifies Salvation properly and literally taken Secondly It is evident that Salvation here is said to be come to Zacheus his house as a peculiar good accrewing to him upon that very ground and vouchsafed to him for that very reason because he was now a Son of Abraham and consequently was a good common to all of whom the same ground and reason might be predicated or spoken and peculiar and proper to them as such Now as Christ did not come to all their houses who were the Children of Abraham whether natural or mystical so he might come to their houses who were not the Sons of Abraham in the one or the other sence Thirdly The Apostle doth clearly expound the meaning of Christ Salvation was come to his house that is as the Apostle expounds it He and his house were under the promise of Salvation Now did not men too wilfully shut their eyes against the light of Scripture they would not affix a sence upon the words of Christ no where warranted from any other parallel Scripture but contrary to the design of Christ in them when they have a plain Exposition made by the Holy Ghost himself we see what Christ saith of Zacheus's house and the Apostle promises the Jaylor with reference to his house that is said and promised upon one and the same ground viz. the Father of both Christ saith Salvation is come to his house he now believing the Apostle saith his house shall be saved upon condition of his believing And who can imagine but that they both speak of salvation in one and the same sence and consequently that the Apostle expounds what that salvation was that Christ saith was come to Zacheus upon his believing 't was
Infants but the Parents themselves were rejected I you will say That Parents were cast off as well as their Seed is granted yea that is the very design of the Apostle to shew that now under the Gospel adiministration the Jews themselves though Abraham's natural Seed could no longer continue the people of God upon the account of their fleshly descent from Abraham unless they did personally believe themselves and they not believing both they and their Children were rejected from those priviledges they had hitherto injoyed upon the account of their natural descent from Abraham To this I answer two things First I deny that the Jews had their Covenant state and relation and consequently their abiding in the House or Family of God continued to them hitherto upon the account of their natural descent from Abraham as hath been already declared and might be further manifested if needful Hence this could not be the design of the Apostle to shew the cessation of that priviledge because there was no such priviledge heretofore vouchsafed to them the promise considered as a definite promise did not extend beyond Abraham's natural Seed immediately proceeding from his own loins Secondly I answer That that Promise as an indefinite promise made to Abraham with reference to his natural Seed taken collectively doth still appertain to the Jews notwithstanding the rejection of so great a part of them This the Apostle grants in this discourse and shews how it had in part its accomplishment in the non-rejection of many of them and shall have its full accomplishment in the general conversion of that Nation in the Ages yet to come See Rom. 11.1 16 25. So that this cannot be the meaning of the Apostle because their present standing in their Covenant-relation with God from which they were now cut off was not upon the meer account of their natural descent from Abraham and the Promise according to the true intent of God in it doth still appertain to them notwithstanding their rejection therefore we must necessarily understand the Apostle according to the sence and meaning afore given I come now to the second thing promised and that is to shew that this Text of the Apostle rightly understood and taken in conjunction with the Context is so far from carrying any contrariety to what hath been affirm'd that it adds not a little to the confirmation of it Yea I dare boldly say that had there been no other Scriptures to prove the truth of it my first Proposition would be past all rational contradiction established from this very Text and my second Proposition may receive no little confirmation from it For let it be observed the Apostle doth plainly grant yea implicitly assert that some were the Seed of Abraham and that as such were the Subjects of that promise who yet were not the Children of God and in that regard were not accounted for the Seed whence it is evident that the same persons might be the Seed of Abraham and as such intended in that promise and yet in another sence were not acounted for the Seed they were his Seed that is the Seed of his flesh or his natural Seed and as such had the promise appertaining to them but they were not the Children of God and in that regard not accounted for the Seed that is not intended in this promise as the persons designed from eternity actually to injoy the good promised and that notwithstanding according to the Apostles intendment in this term Seed they were not accounted for the Seed yet they were the fleshly Seed of Abraham and as such intended in that promise as the joynt Subjects of it with others here said by the Apostle in a special sence to be accounted for the Seed is part all rational doubt evident from the Apostles answer to the forementioned Question taken in conjunction with the Instances produced by him for the proof of what he asserts in that Answer Let but the words be carefully observed Saith the Apostle Neither because they are Abraham's Seed are they all Children that is the Children of God Whence it is evident that some are the Seed of Abraham who were not the Children of Gods and that when the Apostle grants some were the Seed of Abraham who were not the Children of God his meaning is that they had as the Seed or natural Children of Abraham this promise appertaining unto them is evident First Because the Question he was to answer wholly concern'd the natural Seed of Abraham and that as such having that pro mise appertaining unto them as before observed hence undoubtedly when in way of answer to this Question he faith because they are the Seed of Abraham they are not all the Children of God he must needs speak of the same persons that the Question doth concern otherwise his answer had been no wayes pertinent to the Question Secondly This is evident from the Instances that the Apostle produces to prove what he had asserted in this answer and thus he instance in Isaac and Jacob and shews how they were elected and in that regard accounted for the Seed where the Apostle must needs have reference to some others coming in competition with them in regard of their standing in a like capacity respective to the promise as externally made and declar'd to Abraham plainly thus the Apostle must needs have reference to some others who were Abraham's Seed and as scuh had a common external right to and interest in the promises with Isaac and Jacob and these were Ishmael and Esau did not the Apostle suppose and grant that they stood in the like capacity respective to these promises as externally made and declared to Abraham with Isaac and Jacob the producing of these two Instance had made nothing to his purpose nor had been any proof of what he had before asserted in way of answer to the Question proposed for the Apostle to assert that all that are Abraham's Seed are not the Children of God and that by way of answer to the forementioned Question and then only to declare how Isaac and Jacob the one of Abraham's Seed immediately proceeding from his one loins the others of his Race and Posterity were intended in this promise as made to Abraham's Seed in their Generations as being elected and not to suppose and grant that there were some others who were alike either of Abraham's immediate Seed or of his Race and Posterity intended in this promise who were not elect had made nothing at all to his present purpose but would indeed have evidenced the quite contrary to what he affirms Whence it appears in as full evidence as though written with the beams of the Sun that the Apostle doth grant the both Ishmael and Esau were the Subjects of this promise the one as one of Abraham's Children immediately proceeding from his own loins the other included in the promise as made to Abraham's Seed in their Generations and consequently that the promise did belong to Abraham's natural
it only requires in the general that whatever act or duty God himself appoints be exactly observed and performed and that according to the way and manner declared by himself the very same is the case of this Command injoyning the keeping of the Covenant The Command as I have said as thus generally proposed specifies not what that Covenant is or should be only requires the application and reception of the Token of the Covenant and consequently to Circumcision when that was appointed as the Token of the Covenant and during its continuance but upon the cessation of that to Baptisme as that Ordinance which God hath declared to be the present Token of the Covenant Secondly Take another Instance in the fourth Commandment Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy Here is a Command more generally laid down injoyning the keeping holy the Sabbath or rest-day not specifying which day should be that rest-day Now when the Seventh day was instituted as that day of rest this general Command was to be applyed to that particular day and did require the keeping of that day holy but when the Seventh day was laid aside and another day viz. The first day of the week instituted by Christ as that rest day now that Command as so generally proposed is to be applied to this particular day and equally obligeth us Christians to the keeping holy the first day of the week as it did the Jews to keep holy the seventh hence we have no express command in the new Testament for the keeping holy the first day of the week neither is there any need there should that command to remember the day day of rest and keep it holy being equally applicable to one day as to another and God having determined the day the command is to be applyed unto it as so determined by God which again is the very case of this command under consideration it determines not the Covenant to be kept but requires that the Covenant whatever God determines it to be be kept and consequently as it first obliged to the application and reception of Circumcision so now it obligeth to the application and reception of Baptism Now then to come to a close of this first Argument we see the Promises are true and consequently the conclusion is certain namely That it is the will of Christ that the Infant-seed of believing Parents should be baptized CHAP. X. The second and third Argument for the confirmation of the last subordinate Proposition proposed and managed The several Instances of Housholds being baptized considered The second Argument IF the Infant-seed of believing Parents were in primitive times baptized either by the Apostles themselves or by any others by their allowance direction or approbation then it was or still is according to the will of Christ that they should be baptized But the former is true therefore the latter The consequence in the Major proposition will be readily granted on all hands That which alone needs proof is this viz. That the Infant-seed of believing Parents were in primitive times either by the Apostles themselves or by others by their allowance direction or approbation baptized For the confirmation of which this one Argument may suffice If the Infant-seed of believing Parents were by the Apostles owned and looked upon as appertaining to or as Members of the mystical Body of Christ as visible then they were either by themselves or by others by their allowance direction and approbation admitted and implanted into that Body by Baptism But the Infant-seed of believing Parents were owned and looked upon by the Apostles as before expressed Ergo c. Here again the Consequence in the Major proposition will be I suppose readily granted by our Opposers and 't is sufficiently evident by this Argument If Baptism was appointed by Christ for the solemn admission of such into his mystical Body as visible as did appertain thereunto or were Members thereof and there was no other way or means appointed for the same end and purpose then all that the Apostles did own and look upon as appertaining to or as Members of that Body were either by the Apostles themselves or by others by their allowance direction and approbation admitted and implanted into it by Baptism But the former is true therefore the latter the Minor here alone needs proof and that consists of these two branches First That Baptism was appointed by Christ for the solemn admission and implantation of such into his mystical Body as visible as did appertain thereunto or were Members thereof Secondly That there is no other way or means appointed by Christ for that end and purpose First For the first see 1 Cor. 12.13 For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one Body whether we be Jews or Gentiles whether we be bond or free and have been all made to drink into one Spirit What may be objected from this Scripture against the baptism of Infants shall be taken notice of by and by All that I cite it at present for is to prove that Baptism was appointed by Christ for the solemn admission of persons into his Body as visible which is sufficiently evident Secondly That there is no other way or means appointed by Christ for the solemn admission of any into his visible mystical Body If any shall say there is let them shew it and prove from Scripture what they affirm and I shall readily grant the invalidity of this Argument but that doubtless none will attempt to do so that the truth of the Major proposition is unquestionable For the Minor viz. That the Infant-feed of believing Parents were owned and looked upon by the Apostles as appertaining to or as Members of the mystical Body of Christ as visible This will be denyed and therefore must be proved and I shall prove it by these two Arguments both which being grounded upon express and positive Scriptures will render the addition of more wholly needless First All those who were by the Apostle owned and looked upon and that as personally or particularly considered as the actual Subjects of the Promise of Salvation were owned and looked upon by them as appertaining to or as Members of the mystical Body of Christ as visible But the Infant-seed of believing Parents were owned and looked upon by the Apostles and that as personally and particularly considered as the actual Subjects of the Promise of Salvation therefore they were owned and looked upon by them as appertaining to or as Members of the mystical Body of Christ as visible The Minor proposition hath been already proved and as for the Major that is evident thus Christ is the Saviour of his body Ephes 5.23 Now to be under a Promise of Salvation is to be under a Promise of being saved by Christ hence all that are under a Promise of being saved by Christ must needs appertain to or be of his mystical body for 't is of his Body that he is the Saviour But two things will be objected
looked upon by the Apostles as appertaining to or as Members of the mystical Body of Christ which is the thing affirmed in our Major proposition For the Minor proposition viz. That the Infant-seed of believing Parents are under the Gospel administration such Subjects of that Promise this hath been already fully proved whence our Conclusion is undeniable That they were owned and looked upon by the Apostles as appertaining to or as Members of the mystical Body of Christ Object But it will be said That by Christ here we are to understand Christ mystical as invisible and not as visible The Promises are made to Christ that is to the real and internal Members of his mystical Body Answ To that I shall answer these two things First Vbi Lex non distinguit non distinguendum est Where the Law distinguisheth not we are not to distinguish Now the Apostle tells us the Promises are made to Christ not to Christ either under this or that notion or consideration here is no distinction between Christ as visible or invisible but simply and absolutely the Promise is to thy Seed which is Christ But you will say Though the Apostle doth nor here distinguish yet the Scripture elsewhere warrants that distinction and it is certain the Promises do not really appertain to any but such as have a real union with and interest in Christ of whom his Body as invisible is constituted and made up therefore we are to understand the Apostle as intending only the invisible Body of Christ To that I answer It is granted that in order to a due application of this or any other Promise to our selves and in order to our enjoyment of the good promised we must not only look to a visible profession of Christ which constitutes us of his Body as visible but we are to look to the reallity of our union with and interest in him But yet let it be carefully observed that the Scripture presumes and takes it for granted that as to particular persons those who do visibly belong to Christ are of his Body as invisibly as well as visibly considered Hence in all that it speaks to or of the Body of Christ it speaks to or of it simply or absolutely as his Body without distinguishing of it as visible or invisible And let it be further carefully observed that that distinction of Seeds intimated by the Apostle whereof some have the Promises made to them and others not doth not respect the Members of the Body of Christ as visible as though some of them had the Promises made to them in a contradiction from others visibly of the same Body who have not the Promises made unto them but the distinction is either between such who might plead an interest in the Promises as related to Abraham as his natural Children who yet cleaved to the Law for Righteousness and Life Or between such who though in word they did profess Faith in Christ yet did indeed fall in with and imbrace such doctrines and practices as did ipso facto forfeit and disanul their right of membership in the mystical body of Christ as visible and such who did visibly adhere and cleave to Christ in faith and obedience in opposition to the imbracement or falling in with any such doctrines or practices Now the Apostle affirms that to these and not to those the Promise was made Indeed this I shall readily grant that the holy Ghost would have all to know that if any while they keep up a visible profession of Christ and of adhearing alone to him in faith and obedience should yet act short of or contrary to that their profession it was not their meer profession that would give them the actual possession of the good promised they must act according to their profession otherwise though the Promises as externally promulgated and declared are made to them and they in foro Ecclesiae had a right to them yet it was none of the intendment of God that upon the terms of a bare profession they should enjoy the good promised but this I say that the Promises in respect of the external promulgation and declaration of them are made to Christ mystical without consideration had to that distinction of visible and invisible the Holy Ghost speaking to or of then by men speaks according to what visibly appear of them But secondly I answer That Christ here must needs be understood of Christ mystical as visibly considered This hath been touched upon already and for further satisfaction see Mr. Gobbett in his Just Vindication page 57. and it evidently appears from hence because particular and individual persons might ordinarily be known to appertain to and be Members of Christ as here spoken of by the Apostle Now no individual or particular person can be ordinarily known to appertain to Christ or to be a Member of him as invisibly considered see verse 28. where saith the Apostle Ye are all one in Christ the Apostle speaks to the Galatians and saith he Ye are all one in Christ and in saying they were all one in Christ he must needs acknowledge them to be all in Christ how could they be all one in Christ unless they were in Christ But sure none will suppose that the Apostle did infallibly know them to have been universally every individual person among them of the Body of Christ as invisible therefore he must needs speak of Christ here as visible and not meerly as invisible and besides let the foregoing Arguments to prove that the Infant-seed of believing Parents and that as such are included as the actual Subjects of this Promise be well weighed which supposing it to be true it will undeniably follow that the Apostle here speaks of the mystical Body of Christ as visible in as much as the Infant-seed of believing Parents may then be ordinarily known to appertain to Christ as here spoken of by the Apostle And therefore whereas our Opposers affirm That Christ here is to be understood of Christ mystical as invisible and thereupon conclude that the Infant-seed of believing Parents cannot as such be supposed to appertain unto Christ and consequently not included as Subjects of that Promise said by our Apostle to be made unto Christ We on the other hand affirm and I hope have sufficiently proved that they are included as joynt Subjects with their Parents of that Promise and upon that ground ought to be looked upon as appertaining to Christ and consequently that by Christ here we are to understand Christ mystical as visible and not meerly as invisible Now unless our Opposers shall produce clearer evidence that the Apostle doth indeed speak of the mystical Body of Christ meerly as invisible then hath been produced to prove the Infant-seed of believing Parents and that as such to be included in that Promise we shall take it for granted that he speaks of Christ as visible that the Infant-seed of believing Parents do appertain to or are Members of his
persons upon the personal profession of their faith and repentance exclusive of all others which our Opposers themselves will hardly affirm that he hath done yet would have given in so full and clear an account of the Apostles practice in execution of their Commission To teach and baptize the Nations as should have evidently obviated all mistakes in a case wherein mistakes so probably would be when it is so evidently declared that under the first Testament upon persons taking hold of the Covenant both themselves and Housholds were admitted and incorporated into the Body of Christ by the then Sign and Token of the Covenant and then declared in the New that together with Parents upon their imbracement of the Gospel their Housholds were admitted and implanted into the same Body as the Apostle is express in Ephes 3.6 that the Body is one and the same by Baptism the present Sign or Token of the Covenant and no account is given of the personal faith and repentance of any in or of those Houses at least some of them as the ground of their baptism besides the Parents alone Sure none can deny but here is a rational ground to suppose at least very probably that the Covenant and together therewith the Sign and Token of it is of the same extent and latitude as it formerly was Now I say consider how extreamly improbable it is that the Holy Ghost should record the Baptism of whole Housholds taking notice only of the faith and repentance of the Parents without giving the least intimation of the faith and repentance of any in or of such Housholds thereby giving so clear a ground of mistake in case none under the new Testament administration ought to be admitted and incorporated into the mystical Body of Christ as visible but upon a personal profession of their faith and repentance Secondly Let it be considered how the Holy Ghost doth vary his manner of expression in his narrative of those primitive transactions when he speaks of the baptism of Housholds he tells us the Housholds were baptized together with their Parents not giving the least intimation of the faith of any in or of those Houses as the ground of their baptism but when he speaks of more general Assemblies or concourses of people he speaks more distinguishingly As many as gladly received the Word were baptized Acts 2.41 And why the Holy Ghost should speak so distinguishingly in one place and not in the other is hard to say unless it should be because in respect of such more general Assemblies and concourses of people consisting of grown persons the personal faith and conversion of each was necessary to their baptism but not so in respect of the Houses of believing Parents but that is for these Instances as taken abstractly in themselves But now compare one thing with another and the evidence is vastly more clear for as considering what hath been said to prove the interest of the Infant-seed of believing Parents in the Covenant and Promises thereof and what hath been said to evidence a right to Baptism to be of equal extent to interest in the Covenant and Promises thereof it is undeniable to me and I can hardly think but it will be so to others who will freely entertain Light when held forth unto them that these Housholds were baptized as the Houses of such Parents upon the account of their interest in the Covenant so on the other hand when we see what hath been before said concerning the interest of believing Parents in the Covenant and concerning their right to Baptism upon that account and then find whole Housholds baptized and that so very probably to say no more as the Houses of such Parents it may much more strongly perswade us of that their interest in the Covenant and Promises thereof and of their right to the Sign and Token of the Covenant But let that suffice for the proof of our third subordinate Proposition What Objections the Truth we have contended for will meet with from the contrary minded shall now be considered CHAP. XI Objections against the last Proposition answered The conclusion of the whole Object 1. NOtwithstanding all that hath been said for the confirmation of the three foregoing Propositions yet some may say That it is not the will of Christ that the Infant-seed of believing Parents should ordinarily be baptized may be at least very probably concluded from those various passages that do occur in the new Testament wherein such things are declared to have attended the administration of Baptism and such things are affirmed of and required from the baptized in the primitive times which cannot attend Baptism as administred unto Infants nor can be truly affirmed of or rationally required from them See 1 Cor. 12.13 21 25. Ephes 4.16 Gal. 3.26 27. Answ This Objection will soon vanish and appear to have no strength at all in it if we consider these three things which because they are so obvious to every one of a competent understanding and at all acquainted with the Scriptures I shall need do little more than mention First Consider that what in these or the like Scriptures is declared of or required from the Body of Christ or the several Members of that Body as united and incorporated by the means whether internal or external appointed for that end and purpose agrees to and equally concerns the whole Body of Christ and the several Members thereof simply and absolutely in all times and ages the Body of Christ is but one successively continued throughout all ages and hence it may as well be concluded from these Scriptures that Infants never were nor ever shall be admitted into this Body the contrary whereunto is most evident as that in the primitive times they were not by Baptism admitted into it as then existent in the world Secondly Consider that it is a thing of frequent occurrence in Scripture for things to be declared and spoken of or to whole Bodies or Societies and that in the most universal and indefinite terms which yet are to be understood and applyed variously with respect to the particulars according to their respective capacities and concernments in what is so declared or spoken See this abundantly verified in that Speech of Moses to the whole Congregation of Israel recorded in the twenty nine and thirty Chapters of Deuteronomy there are some things spoken as universally true of them all So their standing before the Lord in order to their renewal of their Covenant with him thus Dout. 29.10 11 12 there are other things spoken which were alone true of the grown persons among them and that but in part true of some of them in whole true of others Thus their seeing what God had done for them in Egypt and in the Wilderness some had seen both the temptations they had been tried with and the Signs wrought before them in the Wilderness but had seen nothing in respect of a personal sight of what God had done for
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
doth not suppose their personal salling I say though this might admit of a debate taking this Scripture abstractly in it self yet comparing this Scripture with the evidence before given that the Promise runsin that extent and latitude as to take in Parents and Children surely it is past all rational doubt that Children here are to be taken as the Children of such Parnts the promise is to you and to your Children as they are your Children But having so fully proved this I shall add no more at present Fourthly To add strength to the foregoing Arguments let us take in those several Instances recorded in the new Testament of whole Housholds being baptized upon the faith or conversion of one or both Parents That together with the Parents upon their faith their respective Housholds were frequently baptized is in the new Testament fully declared See Acts 16.14.15 so also verse 33. of the same Chapter 1 Cor. 16.16 touching all which Instances let these three things be observed First That it is very probable if not fully certain that at least some in or of some of these Houses said to be baptized were haptized not upon the account of their own personal profession of Faith and Repentance but upon the account of their Parents Faith For the clearing up of this I shall premise three things First That under this term House or Houshold we must comprehend and take in all the natural Children that were at least then present of these Parents whose Houses are recorded to be baptized we must take the Holy Ghost according to the literal and proper sense of his words where there is no necessary Reason as here there is not otherwise to understand him Secondly That these Houses or Housholds may be rationally supposed to be considerably great these phrases Housholds all his and the like note only a bare plurality of persons but that they were in some measure numerous Thirdly That not only Infants as new born or in their infant-state but such Children who had arrived to a higher state of childhood or were grown to some years of maturity must yet be rationally supposed to be baptized not upon the account of their own personal profession of Faith and Repentance but upon the account of their Parents and the Reason is evident because such Children cannot be rationally supposed to be capable of attaining to in an ordinary way a competent measure of knowledge in the Mysteries of the Gospel in so short a time as did intervene between the Parents imbracement of the Gospel and their own and their Houses Baptism And the Spirit of God in his ordinary way of working works according to the capacity of the Subjects he works in and upon Vnum quodque recipitue secundum modum recipientis Hence our Opposers must either say that in their Houses there were not only no Infants but none in their childhood or else they must say that when the Holy Ghost speaks of Houses he intended only some particular persons in those Houses But for the first It is altogether improbable that there should be so many Families and yet no young Children in them there is a probability there might be Infants but much more that there were Children who though past their infancy in a strict sense yet improbably baptized upon the account of their own personal profession and as for the latter that would be to recede from the letter of the Text which ought not to be without evident necessity whereas here is none at all And for the further clearing up of this first Observation let us take a more particular account of that one Instance of Lydia's house said to be baptized with her the story you have Acts 16.14 15. And here let three things be attended to First That it is evident her Houshold was with her at that Assembly of Women to whom the Apostle preached for after her own and her Housholds baptism she beseecheth Paul to go home with her verse 15. Secondly It is evident this was an Assembly of Women verse 13. Thirdly Here is no mention made of the conversion of any but of Lydia her self Now let things have their due consideration Lydia's Houshold was baptized that is all her Houshold or all that appertained to her that might be properly said to be her Houshold it seems she carried her whole Houshold to that Assembly this Houshold probably numerous or consisting of several persons otherwise the prrticulars would in reason have beeen mentioned here were no Males grown up for it was an Assembly of Women It is true there might be Males in their infancy or childhood it being no way unbeseeming to carry such to such an Assembly and notwithstanding them the Assembly might be said to be an Assembly of Women Now how improbable is it that there should be a Family a numerous Family and not one Male among them if there were any they must rationally be supposed to be in their childhood a great Family and not one Infant or Child in it but every one capable of a ready understanding what was taught so as in a few hours to attain to a competent knowledge in the Mysteries of the Gospel and these all wrought upon by one Sermon when none else in the whole Assembly for ought is recorded were wrought upon yet that the Holy Ghost should only take notice of the conversion of Lydia her her self and not in the least intimate the conversion of any in or of her Houshold I will not say but that it is simply possible that there might be the concurrence of all these things but it is to me altogether improbable that it should be so it is vastly more probable that some if not all that were baptized of her Houshold were indeed baptized upon the account of her Faith and not upon the account of a personal profession of Faith and Repentance that themselves did mrke But here it is said That this Houshold of Lydia had some Men in it as appears from verse 40. and it is probable some Women also who were converted with Lydia and they are the Houshold said to be baptized But to that I answer That it doth no way appear that these Brethren whom the Apostle verse 40. is said to have seen were of Lydia's Houshold they might be Neighbours converted after Paul's comming to her House who now came in to see Paul or whom Paul before his departure went to visit 'T is evident by what hath been already said they were none of her Houshold said before to be baptized with her so that this one Instance all things considered makes it exceeding probable if not evidently certain that some in the Houses whose baptism is recorded in Scripture were baptized upon the meer account of the Parents Faith without consideration had to their own personal Faith and repentance Secondly Let it be observed that it doth not appear that any in or of these Housholds were converted antecedent to their baptism as for Lydia's