Infant Baptism from Heaven and Not of Men, Chapter 6
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; 'tis 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, 'twas the ſame kind of ſalvation that he promiſes to the Jaylor, upon condition of his believing.
The ſecond Concluſion. Thus under this term Houſe, Children are, in a peculiar and ſpecial manner, included and comprehended: How far this term Houſe, is to be extended, whether beyond the Children of thoſe, whoſe houſe is ſpoken of, or no, concerns not my preſent purpoſe; that they are included and intended under that term Houſe, is all that at preſent I affirm. Now that the Children are intended, is evident, partly from that phraſe, Acts 16.33. where foreign, thy houſe, verſe 31. is expounded by this phraſe, foreign, all of him, and partly from the frequent acceptation of this term Houſe throughout the Scripture; it being peculiarly appropriated to the Children: Or ſhould the term be more comprehenſive, yet it cannot rationally be ſuppoſed to exclude them: And yet 'tis further evident by the Apoſtle Peter, where ſaith he, The Promiſe is to you and your Children: What Promiſe? Why the Apoſtle Paul tells us, the promiſe of Salvation, The Promiſe is to thee and thy houſe, ſaith Paul to the Jaylor. But who are we to underſtand by Houſe? Why Peter tells us, his Children. Hence again, as for that conceit of others, that the meaning ſhould be, that ſalvation was come only to him, and in that it was come to him, it might be ſaid, it was come to his houſe, 'tis too palpable a perverting the mind of Chriſt: For let it be obſerved, that by Salvation here, is meant Salvation in a proper ſence as hath been already proved; and that by Houſe here, cannot be meant that material building wherein he dwelt, but his Houſhold or Family. Now how Salvation could be ſaid to be come to his Houſhold, in that it was come to him, when as his Houſhold was no wayes intereſted or concerned in it, is hard to imagine; properly it could not be ſaid to be come to his houſe, himſelf was not properly his houſe: So that this interpretation muſt needs ſuppoſe, that Chriſt here ſpeaks figuratively. Now let it be obſerved, how utterly improbable it is, that Chriſt ſhould uſe a figurative ſpeech, that had a direct tendency to lead men into a miſtake about his ſence and and meaning, when he might have expreſt himſelf without any figure, in as few and as intelligible words, and thereby prevented the danger of his being miſtaken: Had Chriſt intended that Salvation was come only to Zacheus himſelf, it had been as eaſie for him to have ſaid, Salvation is come to this man, as to ſay, Salvation is come to this houſe, and that this phraſe, this houſe, did ſubject men to the danger of miſtaking his ſence and meaning, in caſe he had ſpoken figuratively, is ſufficiently evident becauſe that term Houſe, is ſo frequently, yea, conſtantly and univerſally uſed in a ſence different from what this interpretation ſuppoſeth that Chriſt did uſe it in this place, that term Houſe, being conſtantly and univerſally uſed to ſignifie the Family or Children of thoſe, whoſe houſe is ſpoken of, unleſs when it ſignifies the material building it ſelf: How many hundred places might be inſtanced in, as an evidence of this? Let it be ſhewed whereever this term Houſe is uſed as it is ſuppoſed to be in this interpretation: neither is it, as I judge, a phraſe to be parallel'd in any Language whatſoever, that any good or evil ſhould be ſaid to be come to a houſe that is, the Family or Houſhold when it is come only to one in the houſe, having no reference to any beyond the particular perſon himſelf, is an expreſſion not to be parallel'd throughout the whole Scriptures: but now 'tis the conſtant phraſe of Scripture, to expreſs the Family, eſpecially the Children, by that term Houſe; 'tis wholly ſuperfluous to enumerate places; ſo that ſhould this term Houſe be uſed thus impreperly by Chriſt in this place, it muſt needs ſubject all men to the danger of miſtaking his ſence and meaning, and the danger muſt needs be the greater, becauſe the good, viz. Salvation, ſaid here to be come to his houſe, is ſo frequently, both in the old and new Teſtament, held forth, at leaſt very probably, to ſay no more at preſent, in ſuch an extent and latitude as to reach the whole Family, eſpecially the Children together with their Parents; thus it was promiſed to Abraham, that the Families of the Earth ſhould be bleſſed in him: So God promiſes, that he would be the God of all the Families of Iſrael. Paul tells the Jaylor, that he and his houſe ſhould be ſaved. Peter tells his awakened hearers, the promiſe was to them and their Children, that is, in an equivalency to them and their houſes. Now when it is found in ſuch variety of paſſages, that the promiſe of Salvation extends to whole houſes upon the believing of the Parents, men muſt needs be very apt to conceive, that Chriſt uſes this term Houſe, in a ſence correſpondent to thoſe various paſſages, wherein the ſame good is at leaſt probably held forth in ſuch a latitude and extent, as to reach the whole houſes of believing Parents. Now I ſay, can we imagine that Chriſt ſhould uſe a phraſe in ſuch a ſence, as the whole Scripture is unacquainted with, and which is conſtantly uſed in another ſence, and thereby ſubject all men to ſo great danger of miſtaking his ſence and meaning, and that alſo to the upholding of what himſelf, according to the judgments of our Oppoſers, he was about to throw down, when he might have expreſt himſelf with as much eaſe, & alike intelligibly, in proper terms, no way liable to be miſtaken, methinks it is very ſtrange how it is poſſible for any man to imagine it: So that doubtleſs Chriſt ſpeaks properly, Salvation was come to Zacheus his houſe, that is, the promiſe of Salvation did belong to his houſe, in ſpecial to his Children: and this agrees, as already obſerved, with that promiſe of Paul to the Jaylor, Thou ſhalt be ſaved and thy houſe.
Thirdly, That the promiſe of Salvation belongs to the houſes of believing Parents, meerly as ſuch, without conſideration had to the perſonal faith and repentance of any in, or of their reſpective houſes, and conſequently the promiſe of Salvation may, and frequently doth belong to the houſes of believing Parents, antecedent to the perſonal faith and repentance of any in or of their houſes, beſides themſelves. What belongs to the houſes of believing Parents, as ſuch, that is, as the houſes of ſuch Parents, equally and alike belongs to all the houſes of all ſuch Parents, and conſequently may belong to the houſes of this or that particular believing Parent, when yet none in or of the houſe have perſonally believed or repented.
Now the truth of this Concluſion will be evident by a twofold Argument.
Firſt, What belongs to the houſes of believing Parents, meerly by vertue of ſomething univerſally predicable of all ſuch Parents, muſt needs belong to their reſpective houſes, as ſuch, without conſideration had to the perſonal faith and repentance of any in or of their reſpective houſes: But the promiſe of Salvation belongs to the houſes of believing Parents, by vertue of ſomething univerſally predicable of all ſuch Parents; and therefore the promiſe of Salvation muſt needs belong to all their reſpective houſes, as the houſes of ſuch Parents, without conſideration had to the perſonal faith and repentance of any in or of this houſe.
The Major propoſition cannot be denyed; for if the promiſe of Salvation belong to the houſes of believing Parents, meerly by vertue of ſomething univerſally predicable of all ſuch Parents, certainly then none can queſtion, but that the promiſe belongs to thoſe houſes, as the houſes of ſuch Parents, without conſideration had to any thing in, or done by the houſes themſelves, or any in or of them. If freedom in ſuch a Town or Corporation ſhall belong to the Children of Free-men, meerly by vertue of their Parents freedom, ſure none could queſtion, but that freedom did belong to them, as the Children of ſuch Parents, without conſideration had to any thing in reſpect of the Children themſelves.
For the Minor propoſition: and thus I have three things to do.
Firſt, To ſhew what is that thing predicable of believing Parents, by vertue of which the promiſe of Salvation belongs to their reſpective houſes.
Secondly, To prove, that the promiſe of Salvation doth indeed belong to the houſes of ſuch Parents, meerly by vertue of that thing predicable of them.
Thirdly, To prove, that that thing, whatever it be, is univerſally predicable, or is univerſally true of all ſuch Parents.
For the firſt, And thus in brief, That thing predicable of believing Parents, by vertue of which the promiſe of Salvation belongs to their reſpective houſes, is their relation unto Abraham, as his Seed: Therefore ſhaith Chriſt of Zacheus his houſe, This day is Salvation come to this houſe, for as much as he is the Son of Abraham: 'Tis his Sonſhip to Abraham, or his relation to Abraham, as one of his Seed, that intereſted his houſe in the promiſe of Salvation.
Secondly, Which is the main thing to be proved, That the promiſe of Salvation doth belong to the houſes of believing Parents, meerly by vertue of their Parents relation unto Abraham, as his Seed Now this is evident from that paſſage of Chriſt concerning Zacheus his houſe, Salvation is come to this houſe, for as much as he alſo is a Son of Abraham, that by houſe is not meant Zacheus himſelf, is before proved; it muſt needs be meant of his Houſhold, or Family, peculiarly intending his Children. Now ſayes Chriſt, Salvation is come to this houſe, that is to this Houſhold or Family, for as much as he is a Son of Abraham. Whether Zacheus was a Jew or a Roman is all one as to my purpoſe, ſeeing he is conſidered here. not as a natural, but as a myſtical Son of Abraham; and as ſuch a one, Chriſt affirms, Salvation was come to his houſe; plainly grounding his houſes right to, and intereſt in Salvation, upon his own relation to Abraham, as one of his Seed: Salvation was not only to himſelf, but to his houſhold, by vertue of his relation to Abraham, as one of his Seed, and that the promiſe of Salvation belongs to the houſes of ſuch Parents, meerly by vertue of that their relation to Abraham, is evident, becauſe the Scripture aſſigns nothing elſe as neceſſarily to concur with that their Parents relation unto Abraham, for the effecting or producing their houſes right to, and intereſt in the promiſe: Chriſt tells us here, That Salvation was come to this mans houſe by vertue of his relation unto Abraham; and let it be ſhewed, where any thing elſe is required, for the effecting or producing that their intereſt in, and right to the promiſe.
It may be ſome will ſay, 'Tis eaſily done, the Apoſtle Peter makes effectual calling a neceſſary prerequiſite to the Seed of believing Parents intereſt in, and right to the promiſes: for ſaith he, The Promiſe is to you and your Children, and to all that are afar off, even to as many as the Lord our God ſhall call. Whence it ſeems to be evident, that notwithſtanding Parents relation to Abraham, as his Seed, yet the promiſe of Salvation appertains not to their Children, but upon ſuppoſition of their being effectually called.
To that I anſwer two things (not to ſtay upon a vindication of that Text of the Apoſtle from the unſound ſence ſuppoſed in this Objection;
Firſt, That Chriſt doth not ſay; Salvation ſhall come to this houſe, but he ſpeaks in the time paſt, Salvation is come: 'tis true, if it had been only a promiſe referring to the time to come, there had been ſome ſhew of colour for the ſuppoſing ſuch a condition to be implyed in it; but Chriſt ſaith, Salvation was then come, and that upon that ground, and for that reaſon, becauſe he alſo was a Son of Abraham, Now ſhould we interpret this affirmation of Chriſt by that of the Apoſtle, according to the ſence given by our Oppoſers, his words would run thus, Salvation is come to this houſe; that is, to as many of them as the Lord our God ſhall call, which would be contradictory, for if it were come already, the coming of it could not depend upon a future condition. If the coming of Salvation did depend upon the performance of a future condition, it could not be ſaid to be come already; and therefore we muſt not interpret this paſſage of Chriſt by that of Peter, but that paſſage of Peter by that of Chriſt.
Secondly, I anſwer, That this was a good vouchſafed to Zacheus, upon the account of his relation to Abraham, as one of his Seed, and anſwerably was a good common to all ſtanding alike related to Abraham, and proper and peculiar unto them; but now to have the promiſe of Salvation upon condition of being effectually called, is a good conmon to all men univerſally, and therefore the promiſe is ſaid to be to all whom the Lord our God ſhall call; but Salvation was cme to Zacheus his houſe as he was a Son of Abraham; ſo that we ſee it was meerly by vertue of his relation unto Abraham, that the promiſe of Salvation belongs to his houſe, Chriſt affirming that Sakvatuib was come by vertue of that his relation; and the Scripture being ſilent as to the neceſſary concurrence of any thing elſe for the intereſting his houſe in the promiſe of Salvation; we may poſitively conclude, the promiſe of Salvation doth belong to the houſes of all believing Parents, meerly by vertue of that their relation to Abraham as his Seed, eſpecially if we conſider,
Thirdly, That this relation to Abraham is univerſally predicable of all believing Parents: All believing Parents are the Children of Abraham, and conſequently this could be no priviledge peculiar to Zacheus, to have Salvation come to his houſe, as he was a Son of Abraham, But is a priviledge common to all believing Parents, they ſtanding alike related to Abraham as he did. So that the Minor Propoſition is undoubtedly true, whence the Concluſion will undoubtedly follow.
My ſecond Argument is this, If the promiſe of Salvation may and ought to be applied by the diſpencers of the Goſpel to believing Parents, both with reference to themſelves and their Children, meerly as ſuch, that is, as believing Parents, without conſideration has to the perſonal faith and repentance of any in or of their houſes, then the promiſe of Salvation muſe needs belong to them and their houſes, without conſideration had to the perſonal ſaith and repentance of any in or of their houſes: but the former is true, therefore the latter.
Certainly if a Miniſter of the Goſpel may apply the promiſe of Salvation, not only to believing Parents themſelves, but to their houſes, then that promiſe belongs not only to them, but to their houſes: Miniſters may not apply promiſes any other wayes then as they belong to thoſe to whom the application is made.
Now that the promiſe of Salvation may and ought to be applyed in this extent and latitude, not only to believing Parents themſelves, but to their reſpective houſes, and that meerly as ſuch, without conſideration had to the perſonal faith and repentance of any in or of their houſes, is evident, paſt all rational contradiction, by the Apoſtles propoſing the promiſe in this extent and latitude to the Jaylor. As the Apoſtle did proplſe it to the Jaylor, as a motive to him to believe, it might and ought to have been applied to him upon his actual believing, he might have been aſſured, that now he and his houſe ſhould be ſaved, yet in that way, and according to that method, or upon the terms hold forth in the Covenant of Grace (an account of which we have already given.) And that the Apoſtle propoſes this promiſe in the extent and latitu de before expreſt to the Jaylor, upon condition of his own believing , without conſideration had to the perſonal faith and repentance of any in or of his houſe, is evident from the expreſs words of the Text, Thou ſhalt be ſaved and thy houſe; and conſequently might have been applied to him, as a Believer, upon his actual believing; and hence it appears, that this promiſe did not appertain to him alone, it was not a priviledge peculiar to him, to have his houſe under the ſame promiſe with himſelf, but a priviledge common to all believing Barents. Quatenus ipſum, concludes de omni.
The only Objection I have met with is this; That as the Promiſe was made conditionally, to the Jaylor himſelf, ſo to his houſe, that is, as the Apoſtle promiſed to him, that if he believed he ſhould be ſaved; ſo he promiſed to him, with reference to his houſe, that if they believed they ſhould be ſaved, according to the interpretation given of that promiſe of Peter, Acts 2.39.
To that I anſwer, That though it is readily granted, that the promiſe, as externally propoſed, was conditionally both to himſelf, and his houſe, yet I ſay, that his own believing did give his houſe an actual right to, and intereſt in the promiſe (yet to be fulfilled, according to the terms of the Covenant) is evident, becauſe there could be no reaſon of the Apoſtles adding that other branch of the promiſe as a motive to him to believe, unleſs by his believing a peculiar good (which can be nothing elſe but this right to, and intereſt in the promiſe) did accrew to his houſe. It had been a ſtronger motive for the Apoſtle to have ſaid, Believe in the Lord Jeſus and thou ſhalt be ſaved, and all the Town, or Country, yea, all the World, If the Apoſtle had not intended a peculiar good, in relation to the ſalvation of his houſe, redounding to them by his believing, there had been no more reaſon for him to mention his houſe, than for him to have mentioned the whole Town or Country, or whole World, in as much as thev ſhould all be ſaved upon condition of their believmg.
And hence, whereas when this conſideration is urged to prove, That the Apoſtle Peter holds forth and declares the Covenant, and promiſes thereof, in this latitude and extent, to thoſe awakened Jews, Acts. 2.29.
It is replyed, That there were other Reaſons of his mentioning their Children, then the aſſerting their right to; and intereſt in the Covenant and I romiſe thereof. That ſhift (for ſo I ſhall call it) can have no place here, for if it ſhould be granted, that the Apoſtle Peter might mention the Children of theſe Jews, with reſpect to that imprecation they were under, recorded in Matth. 27.25. ir wutg reſpect to that firſt offer and tender of Chriſt and the grace of the Goſpel to be made to the Jews; yet there could be no ſuch reaſon of the Apoſtle mentioning the Jaylors houſe, they were under no ſuch imprecation, neither had they any priviledge above others, in point of the offers and tenders of Salvation to be made to them; and therefore the only reaſon imaginable of the Apoſtles mentioning of his houſe, was to aſſure him, that upon his believing he ſhould injoy the promiſe of Salvation, in the extent and latitude it was at the firſt eſtabliſhment of the Covenant given unto Abraham: had not the promiſe extended to his houſe, as well as to himſelf, perſonally conſidered, there had been no reaſon for the Apoſtle to mention his houſe, and tell him, that not only himſelf, but his houſe ſhould be ſaved, had not a peculiar good redounded to his houſe by his believing: It had been a more effectual motive to have told him, that the whole Town ſhould have been ſaved in as much as then his houſe had been included, and he had had a further intimation of the probability of other of his Friends, Relations and Acquaintance Salvation.
Secondly, I anſwer, If we compare this promiſe of Paul to the Jaylor, with that forementioned paſſage of Chriſt concerning Zacheus his houſe, 'tis evident, the Apoſtle propoundeth this promiſe, in both branches of it, to him, upon the alone condition of his perſonal believing; and his meaning is, that in caſe he himſelf ſhould believe, he and his houſe ſhould be ſaved, that is, as Peter (as hath been already obſerved) expounds it, the promiſe of Salvation would be to him and his houſe; and that this is his meaning, appears from that parallel paſſage of Chriſt: Chriſt tells Zacheus, Salvation was come to his houſe, upon his own believing, and that upon that very ground, or for that very reaſon, becauſe he now was a Son of Abraham, and upon the ſame ground, and for the ſame reaſon, we muſt ſuppoſe that the Apoſtle makes this promiſe to the Jaylor; the Apoſtle is to be underſtood, according to that of Chriſt, it is as if he had ſaid, believe in the Lord Jeſus, and thereby thou wilt become a Son of Abraham, and as ſo related to him, ſhall enjoy the promiſes in the ſame exten and latitude in which it was made to him at the firſt eſtabliſhment of it. God will be a God to thee and thy houſe, that is eminently thy Children, which is all one as to the ſence and importance of that promiſe, Salvation ſhall come to thee and thy houſe, or, The promiſe will be to thee and thy Children: all theſe phraſes are of one and the ſame importance and ſignification. So that from all, the truth of this our third Concluſion evidently appears, and from it, before I proceed to the other, we may infer theſe two things.
Firſt, That it is not at all neceſſary to affirm or prove, that there were any Infants in the Jaylor houſe at this time, in order to the proving, from the Apoſtles making this conditional promiſe to him and his houſe; that the promiſes of the Covenant are given to, and ſetled upon believing Gentiles, in the ſame latitude and extent that they were given to Abraham, at the firſt eſtabliſhment of the Covenant with him; if he had any Infants, the promiſe had belonged to them as part of his houſe; the promiſe was to him, with reference to his houſe, as a Believer, without conſideration had to the perſonal faith and repentance of any in or of his houſe; hence whoever was to be included in this term houſe, had the promiſe appertaining to them, whether capable of believing or repenting or no, and conſequently had appertained to his Infants, in caſe he had had any, they being neceſſarily to be included in this term houſe; and ſuppoſe there was no Infants in his houſe at that time, yet in that this was a promiſe, not peculiar and proper to him, but common to all Believers, the promiſe belongs to the Infants in their reſpective houſes. The promiſe appertains to the houſe, by vertue of the Parents believing, as thereby they are ingrafted into Abraham's Family, and become one of his Seed, and hence all that are included in that term houſe, have the promiſe appertaining unto them, and conſequently Infants as well as others.
And if it ſhould be ſaid, There might be ſome Children grown up, who might refuſe to accept of the promiſe, as made upon the terms of the Goſpel, and how could the promiſe appertain to them.
I anſwer, Their caſe would have been the very ſame with the caſe of the Jews, at the firſt preaching of the Goſpel. The promiſe appertain'd to them, as of the houſes of believing Parents, but their actual refuſal would have, ipſo facto, diſanulled that their right and title to the promiſe, and ſo they, by their own ſin, had deprived themſelves of the good promiſed.
Secondly, We may infer, that the Scripture frequently mentioning the perſonal faith and repentance of the houſes, or of any in the houſes of believing Parents, no way oppoſes, but on the other hand ſtrongly confirms the truth of what we affirm in this ſecond Propoſition, concerning the ſettlement of Abraham's promiſe, in the full latitude and extend of it, upon believing Gentiles, in that the houſes, or any in the houſes of believing Parents, were ſavingly wrought upon, either at the ſame time, or immediately after their Parents believing and accepting the terms of the Covenant, it cannot be with the leaſt ſhew of reaſon inferred or concluded from thence, that they had not the promiſe of Salvation appertaining to them, meerly as the houſes, or as of the houſes of ſuch Parents, without conſideration had to their own perſonal faith and repentance; but on the other hand it doth ſtrongly prove, they were under the promiſe, as the houſes of ſuch Parents, in their believing and repenting the Promiſe was verified; their believing and repenting was a viſible demonſtration, that the promiſe, in the extent and latitude before expreſt, viz. as reaching and taking in the houſes with the Parents themſelves, was duly and rightfully applyed to ſuch Parents by the Apoſtle, when we find the Apoſtle applyes the promiſes of the Covenant to the Gentiles, in the ſame latitude and extent that they were given to Abraham, viz. as taking in their Children with them, and them read of the faith and repentance of their Children, immediately following upon their own believing, it may more fully aſſure us, that the promiſe runs ſtill in the ſame latitude and extent that it formerly run in: why, we have not only the Apoſtles application of the promiſe for our aſſurance, but we have God himſelf confirming that application made by the Apoſtle, in his giving in the good promiſed, in that extent and latitude in which the Apoſtle did apply the promiſe: The Apoſtle applyes the promiſe in this extent, Thou and thy houſe ſhall be ſaved: God by actually giving in the good promiſed, aſſures us, that the Apoſtles application was according to his mind and will, that he was and would be ſtill a God, not only to believing Gentiles, perſonally conſidered, but a God alſo to their reſpective houſes: So that whether there were any Infant-children, or any Children in their Infant capacity in theſe houſes, the baptiſm of which is recorded in Scripture, or no, is all one as to what I contend for. The promiſe of Salvation, which is equivolently the ſame with that of Gods being a God to them, appertains to the houſes of believing Parents, as ſuch, without conſideration had to the perſonal faith of thoſe houſes, or any in them. If there were no Infant-children, yet the promiſe appertains to the houſe; if there were, the promiſe appertained to them as part of ſuch a houſe: and the mention made in Scripture of the perſonal faith and repentance of ſuch houſes, or any in them, no way oppoſes, but confirms their intereſt in, and right to that promiſe of Salvation, and conſequently they ought to be baptized, as will appear from the proof of our third Propoſition.
But let that ſuffice, for the ſecond Concluſion, which is that I principally aimed at, and therefore have eſpecially inſiſted upon it. I ſhall but mention the other two. And therefore,
Fourthly, That the intereſt that the houſes of beliving Parents have in the promiſe of Salvation denominates them holy, and conſtitutes them of the Kingdom, Church, or Myſtical Body of Chriſt; this I gather from Mark 10. and 1 Cor. 7.14. taken in conjunction with thoſe other new Teſtament Scriptures aforementioned.
Laſtly, That this intereſt in the promiſe of Salvation accrews to the houſes of believing Parents, by vertue of ſuch Parents relation to Abraham, as his Seed: This is evident from that of Chriſt concerning Zacheus, Salvation is come to his houſe, for as much as he is a Son of Abraham. And from all it appears, that the very ſame promiſe, made to Abraham and his natural Seed, is ſtill continued to, and ſetled upon believing Gentiles, which is our ſecond Propoſition: Let us now hear what is objected againſt what is aſſerted in it.