Infant Baptism from Heaven and Not of Men, Chapter 10
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 'tis 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 'tis of his Body that he is the Saviour.
But two things will be objected.
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, 'tis 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 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. Ʋbi 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 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 'tis 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, 'tis 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, 'twas 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; 'tis 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, Ʋnum 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: 'Tis 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 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, foreign, 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? 'Tis 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: 'Tis 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 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.