by Pastor Peter Edwards
CHAPTER II.
Arguments on the side of Infant
Baptism.
Infant baptism is to be proved, in the same way, as female communion. In the case of female communion, all the Baptists I have ever conversed with, on that subject, make use of inference and analogy; and, though in them it is ridiculous, they are not able to prove it in any other way. And this method is even adopted by Mr. Booth, as I shall more plainly evince in another place; though glaringly inconsistent with his own principles.
As I am now to advance proof in
favour of infant baptism, the simple method I mean to adopt will be the
following. In the first place, it is a
fact acknowledged by the Baptists themselves, that infants were at an early
period constituted members of the
ARGUMENT I.
God
has constituted in his Church the membership of infants, and admitted them to
it by a religious rite.
In this argument it is proper to take notice of two parts.
I. The church membership of infants.—A church is a society that stands in special relation to God, being instituted for religious purposes. When the persons composing this society appear openly in such relation to God; it is called a visible church; and of such an one I now speak. The relation between God and this society, is formed by God himself, by declaring he is, and will be their God. This declaration of God which constituted that relation, which indeed did exist from the beginning, had an equal regard to adults and infants; “I will be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.” And hence both young and old, who had been duly entered, were considered as children of the covenant and the kingdom, that is, of the church. The rite of circumcision being performed, the circumcised was presented to the Lord; which is a mode of expression to signify a public entering into church fellowship.
The case, as now stated, is, I suppose, commonly admitted. It is granted by Baptists, who are the most likely of any to deny it, that infants were members of the Jewish church. Mr. Booth grants it, vol ii. 224. So does Mr. Keach, Gold Refined, page 113. “That children were admitted members of the Jewish church is granted.” And indeed it is not possible to deny this, without denying that adults themselves were members, which would be the same as denying that adults themselves were members, which would be the same as denying that God had a church in the world. Infants, therefore, were constituted by God himself, members of his own visible church.
II. Infants, in order to visible membership, were the subjects of a religious rite. That circumcision was a religious rite, is as easily proved, as that baptism and the Lord’s supper are such. Mr. Booth, in this case, is in a strait betwixt two; he is not willing flatly to deny it, nor yet can he prevail on himself to acknowledge it. He is very tender upon the subject, as if he saw some formidable consequence lurking beneath it. See what he says, coll. ii. 250. “Baptism is an appointment purely religious, and intended for purposes entirely spiritual; but circumcision, besides the spiritual instruction suggested by it, was a sign of carnal descent, a mark of national distinction, and a token of interest in those temporal blessings that were promised to Abraham.” Now can any living soul tell from whence Mr. Booth had all this? Was it from the Koran or Talmud? To show he never took his notion from the Bible, I will set the Bible against him, and him against it.
|
Booth. It was a token of interest in temporal blessings. It was a sign of carnal descent. It was a mark of national distinction. |
Bible. It was a token of the covenant between God and Abraham, to be a God to him and his seed. It was a sign of circumcision, i.e. of the heart and spirit. It was a seal of the righteousness of faith. |
Now compare Mr. Booth with fact.
|
Booth. It was a token of interest in temporal blessings. It was a mark of national distinction. It was a sign of carnal descent. |
Fact. Many had the interest without the token, and many had the token without the interest. Many other nations had the same mark. So it was a distinction which did not distinguish. All Abraham’s male servants, and many proselytes, were circumcised. Either these were descended from Abraham, or Mr. Booth’s sign was deceptive. |
See what the love of hypothesis can do! Could any man have given a poorer account of circumcision than Mr. Booth has done?
But was it not, after all, a truly religious institution? Mr. Booth is not willing to deny this altogether. He seems to grant, at least by implication, that it was half a religious rite. “Baptism,” says he, “is an appointment purely religious, for purposes entirely spiritual.” By his using the words purely and entirely as applied to baptism, and then comparing it to circumcision, he seems to admit that circumcision was partly a religious rite. All he will grant in plain terms, concerning the religious nature of this institution is, that it “suggested spiritual instruction;” which is not peculiar to any rite either Jewish or Christ. I am sorry to see a man, of Mr. Booth’s ability, trifle after this sort. He certainly knew not what to make of it; he saw something in its aspect dreadfully formidable to his system, and was afraid of its appearing, in that form, in which it is set forth in the word of God. These strokes in Mr. Booth’s book, and such as these, which I intend to notice, convince me more than any thing I have ever read, of the fallacy of the Baptist’s scheme.
Leaving Mr. Booth’s erroneous account of this ordinance, we will view it as represented in the word of God. To see, then, whether it is a religious rite, we have only to view it, in its various relations to religion; and circumcision thus viewed will appear to have been of that description, as truly as baptism or the Lord’s supper. Let it be considered in its institution—in its application—in its obligation—and connexion with religious things.
1. In its institution. In this
view of it, it was a token of God’s covenant made with Abraham, in which he
promised to be a God unto him, and his seed after him. And then, as an appendage, he promised to
give him and his seed the
2. We may view it further, in its application, under the threefold notion of a token, a sign, and a seal. As a token, it is a ratification of God’s grant in covenant, to be a God to Abraham and his seed. As a sign, it denotes the grace of God on the heart, whereby it is enabled to love God, to worship him, and to have no confidence in the flesh. Deut. xxx. 6. Rom. ii. 28,29. Phil. iii. 3. And therefore it is called a sign of circumcision, i.e. of the circumcision of the heart. As a seal, it applies to the righteousness of faith, i.e. the righteousness of Christ, by which men are justified.
3. We may consider it, in its connexion.
And this is, with the Scriptures,
If we view it in its obligation, we may observe, that as it was an
entering into the visible
When, therefore, we consider this institution, in its use and application, under all these views, there can be no doubt of its being a religious institution; because its whole use and application are so. And as nothing more can be said to prove the religious nature of baptism and the Lord’s supper; a man might as well deny these to be religious ordinances, as the other. And hence it is that Mr. Booth’s conduct is the more to be wondered at, who, notwithstanding he must have seen all this in Scripture, does, without authority from the word of God, transform it into a mere secular political rite. And this is done to destroy all analogy between it and baptism, for fear that analogy should prove the destruction of his scheme.
Mr. Booth in his preface says, non tali auxilio, nec defensoribus istis. This is to intimate to the reader, that a good cause does not need a bad defence. Now, if we are to form a judgment of the cause he has undertaken to support, from the means he makes use of, to support it, we cannot suppose the cause he has taken in hand, is any other than a very bad one. I question if a carnal Jew could have given a more frigid, degrading account of an institution of God, than he has done. According to him, it was only a sign of carnal descent—a mark of national distinction—a token interest in temporal blessings—it had a political aspect—it was performed with political views—and (not knowing very well what to do with it, he introduces a learned word, and says) it was adapted to an ecclesiastico-political constitution. Thus he. But one thing he forgot—he has not given all this the sanction of the sacred text. Indeed, if it agree to any thing in the Bible, it agrees best of all to the circumcision of those poor Shechemites, who were first deceived and then and then destroyed by the sons of Jacob. Gen. xxxiv.
These two parts of the proposition being evinced; namely, 1. The church-membership of infants; and, 2. their admission to it, by a religious rite; the whole proposition which I undertake to maintain, and to lay as a ground-work, from which to conclude the baptism of infants, is this; God has constituted in his church the membership of infants, and has admitted them to it by a religious rite. Before I pass to the next argument, I will make a remark on each part.
I. From this fact, we learn so much of the mind of God, as to be able to conclude, that there is nothing in a state of infancy, incompatible with church-membership. The reason is evident; for had there been any thing unsuitable in such a practice, God, who is an infinitely wise judge of decency and fitness, would never have ordained it. This conduct of the infinitely wise God, and the practice of about two thousand years, stand in direct repugnancy to the weak prejudice of Baptists; who, from the sentiment they have adopted, are led to suppose that there is nothing in nature more ridiculous, than the idea of infants being church members. This is one instance of human depravity, whereby the weakness of man sets itself up against the wisdom of God; and as this is the more to be admired in those persons, who in other respects are desirous of submitting to the whole will of God, so it serves to show, what a very unhappy influence the admission of an erroneous sentiment may gain over the mind.
II. It appears from this part of the divine conduct, in plain opposition to the views of Baptists, that the ignorance and want of faith, inseparable from a state of infancy, are no impediments to the administration of a religious ordinance; and this truth should be the more regarded by us, as it stands supported by the high authority of God; and is as a thousand arguments against all those pleas which are drawn from the incapacity of infants. For while we see those declared fit subjects of a religious ordinance, who could know nothing of its nature or use; with what prudence or piety can any man presume to affirm, that infants are incapable of such an ordinance? But if any one should take so much authority on himself, as to arbitrate against the wisdom of God, he would do well to consider, that God is true, and every man a liar, i.e. that judges differently.
ARGUMENT II.
The
church-membership of infants was never set aside by God or man; but continues
in force under the sanction of God, to the present day.
The force of this and the preceding argument taken together, may be comprehended by any man of common reasoning powers. Every one knows, that what was once done, and never undone, must of course remain the same: and that what was once granted and never revoked, must needs continue as a grant. There can be no fallacy in all this. These arguments, therefore, being fairly maintained, will carry us forward, to a dilemma; and that dilemma will bring us home to the conclusion.
In good theory, the proof of this argument should not lie upon the Paedobaptist. For if I affirm, and prove, that God did settle a certain plan respecting church members, and another should come and affirm that that plan was now altered, it should lie on him to produce his proof that such an alteration has taken place; and the reason it, that whatever God has established should be supposed to continue, though we could bring no proof of its continuance, unless we are plainly told that he has ordered it otherwise. And then, since there is not a single text in Scripture to prove that the church-membership of infants is annulled, this argument should remain in force without further proof. However, I will waive this privilege, which I might justly claim, and proceed to evince the argument I have laid down.
There was only one point of time, in which it is even supposed that church-membership of infants was set aside; and that was, when the Gentiles were taken into a visible church state. In that period, several institutions did cease, and some new ones were ordained. Our only question is, whether the church-membership of infants did cease at the same time. It is evident that the mere change or cessation of institutions could work no change upon membership, any more than a man’s having his clothes changed can produce a change upon the man. All institutions, whether typical or ratifying, that is, all institutions of every kind, are to be considered, in respect to church members, as means of grace, and nourishments for faith, respecting Christ the mediator, and the unsearchable riches of Christ; and then a change taking place in these things, will, in itself, produce no more alteration in the members of the church, than a change in a man’s diet will destroy the identity of the man.
I am now to prove the church-membership of infants, which having been ordained of God, was never annulled, but carried forward into the Gentile church; and so consequently is in force at the present time. And this I shall proceed to do:
From Scripture views of God’s dispensation towards the Gentiles.
Much light might be thrown upon this subject, by considering those prophecies of the Old Testament, which relate to the calling in of the Gentiles. This Dr. Williams has done to great advantage: but my design being brevity, I shall confine myself to passages on that subject in the New Testament.
I.
Matt. xxi. 43. “Therefore I say unto you, the
The plain meaning of this passage is, that as, in times past, the
1.
The ceasing of a regular church state among the
Jews. And this actually took place, by
the destruction of some, and the dispersion of others, who did not receive the
Lord Jesus Christ as sent of God; while those who did receive him, were at
length removed from
2. The setting up a regular church state among the Gentiles. This, as the cessation of the church among the Jews, was gradually brought about. For the Gentiles who came over to Christ, joining themselves to the Jewish church, became in time the larger part. So that by the increase of the Gentiles, and the breaking off of the worthless branches among the Jews, nothing remained but an entire Gentile church.
3. The sameness of the church state among the Gentiles, with that among the Jews. For taking away and giving cannot import a change in the thing taken and given; but a transfer, the passing of a thing from one to the other. The kingdom given to the Gentiles was the same that was taken from the Jews: for all that was taken from the Jews was given to the Gentiles. Now, if we would know what was to be the church state among the Gentiles, we have only to learn what it had been among the Jews: for in both cases the church state was the same. And then, as it has before been proved, and admitted by the Baptists, that the church state among the Jews consisted in the membership of adults and infants, the church state among the Gentiles must consist of adults and infants too; because the same that was taken from the Jews was given to the Gentiles. And so it appears from God’s dispensation to the Gentiles, that the church-membership of infants was not set aside.—I will anticipate two objections in this place, which may be urged on each of the passages I shall allege.
1.
It may be said, that in this way of viewing the
subject, all the ordinances and rituals of the Jewish church must be adopted by
the Gentile. To this I answer, that
these things were not of the essence of a church state; but only means of
grace, and helps to faith for the time being.
Neither were these taken and given, but annulled; they were not
transferred, but abolished. Rituals are
to a church, as diet or ornaments are to a man; let the diet be changed, and
the ornaments removed, the essence of the man will still be the same. So the state and essence of the
2. If any should say, it does not appear that women in the Jewish church were admitted to an initiating rite, and if so, there is a difference between the present church and the Jewish; I observe in answer, that this difference does not imply a removing or changing of any thing, but merely that of adding. That wereas the church state among the Jews included males both adult and infant; so to the Gentile church, together with these, there is, by the express order of God, the superaddition of females.
I would observe further, that the addition of females seems to me to be favourable to the argument I am upon; because it is a new provision annexed to an old law. Now an alteration made in a law, gives an additional firmness to all those parts which are not altered. And the reason is, it supposes that all the unaltered parts are perfectly agreeable to the legislator’s mind. And so, when the Lord expressly took away the partition between Jew and Gentile, and male and female, and passed over infants without making the least alteration in their case, he thereby gave a superadded confirmation, that the church-membership of infants, which had been before established, was in every respect agreeable to his will.
II. Rom. xi. 23,24. “And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in again: for God is able to graft them in again. For if thou wert cut out of the olive-tree, which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive-tree; how much more shall these which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive-tree?”
1. The olive-tree is to denote a visible church state. 2. The Jews are said to be natural branches, because they descended from Abraham, to whom the promise was made. “I will be a God unto thee and to thy seed.” 3. The Gentiles were brought into the same church state, from which the Jews were broken off. 4. The apostle suggests that the Jews will again be grafted into their own olive-tree. From whence, with a view to my purpose, I would notice:
1. The future state of the Jews, who, he says, if they abide not in
unbelief, shall be grafted in again.
Grafting in again is the bringing of a person or thing into the same
condition in which it was before. So the
grafting in again of the Jews, is putting them into the same church state, in
which they were before they were broken off.
What was their church state before they were broken off? I answer, as before proved, that it consisted
of the membership of adults and infants.
Why then, if it before consisted of adults and infants, it will again
consist of the same: because grafting in again is the placing of persons so
grafted, in their former state. And that
is in fact the same state, in which they would have continued, if they had
never been broken off. That is, if it
had not been for their unbelief, (for which they were cut off,) they would have
continued, both they and their infants, as members of the
In compliance with this idea, I will just turn aside to observe, that it
is natural for one error to lead to another; and that this is not more evident
in any, than it is in the Baptists. They
grant that infants were members of the Jewish church; and this from them is a
very considerable concession. But a
concession like this, leads to a consequence horribly alarming to their
system. For if infants were once members
of the
To remove this difficulty, the Baptists have recourse to this expedient. For as they cannot show from nay place of Scripture, that infants are expressly set aside from church-membership; they fall to degrading the Jewish church, its membership and institutions: and when they have done, there is hardly any church or institution left. What was the Jewish church? Mr. Booth, vol. ii. 252. “It was an ecclesiastico-political constitution.” What was the membership of it? Mr. Booth, page 251. “An obedient subject of their civil government, and a complete member of their church-state, were the same thing.” What was the church institution? Mr. Booth, page 250, &c. “It was a sign of carnal descent, a mark of national distinction; it had a political aspect, and was performed with political views.” I wish I had a good casuist at my elbow, to explain what kind of church this could be. For had I been Mr. Booth, I would, to save trouble, have fairly denied that it was any church at all. And to say the truth of him, he has fairly done all this.
Now, it is a desperate cause, that leads a man to fall upon the very
This is one shift to ward off the consequence I have mentioned. But now we want another shift, to escape the consequence that is yet to come. “And they, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in again.” Grafting inagain is the bringing of persons or things into their former condition. Now, if the former Jewish church state was all political, as Mr. Booth will have it, then the consequence will be, that when the Jews shall confess the Lord Jesus Christ, and belief with their heart, that God raised him from the dead, &c. and shall in consequence be re-ingrafted into their own olive-tree, they will be all political again! A mere ecclesiastico-political constitution! wherein an obedient subject of civil government, and a complete member of a church, will be the same thing! Well, when this shall take place, infant church membership may come about again.
But I return from this digression to notice:
2. The present state of the Gentiles. It appears from the text, that the church state is the same to the Gentiles, as it had been to the Jews, and as it will be to the Jews, in some future period, when it shall please God to graft them in again. And the reason of this is, because each in their turn belong to the same olive-tree, i.e. the visible church state. And therefore, as infants made a part of the church before the jews were cut off, and will again make a part, when they shall be reingrafted; they must likewise make a part among the Gentiles: because the same olive-tree, i.e. church state, must confer the same privilege on all who shall be in it.
This truth will receive additional confirmation, and the contrary error will be more evident, if we consider, that since infants were once members among the Jews; and when their reingrafting shall take place, will be so again; so, if among the Gentiles they are deemed improper subjects of membership, and, in consequence of that, are universally rejected, two things will follow: 1. There will be, in the mean time, a very unhandsome schism in the ecclesiastical chain. For though infants were found members in the first ages of the church, and will be so in the last, there will be non to fill up the middle. And, 2. There will also be, in future time, a very unpleasant discordancy. For when the Jews shall be grafted in again, they will adopt their old practice of receiving infants to membership; while the Gentiles, denying they have any such right, will persist in shutting them out; and all this, as some suppose, in the spiritual reign of Christ.
III. Rom. xi. 17. “And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou being a wild olive-tree, were grafted in among them and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; boast not thyself against the branches.”
1. The olive-tree, as before noted, is the visible church state. 2. The branches are members of the visible church. 3. Some of these were broken off, and some remained. 4. The Gentiles who were called of God, were united to this remnant; for they were grafted in among them. From this view of the passage, I draw these three conclusions:
1. That there was no discontinuance of the ancient church state; in its
essence, it remained the same as it had always been. That this is a true conclusion appears from
hence; the text informs us that some of the branches were broken off; and if
only some, then not all; and that remnant, continuing in their former state,
constituted the still existing
2. That the bringing in of the Gentiles did not constitute a new church. This passage informs us, that when the Gentiles were called in, they became members of the church already constituted: “They were grafted in among them,” and so became one body, one fold; that “with them they might partake of the root and fatness of the olive-tree.” The first Gentiles of whose calling we read, are said to have been added to the church; but there was no church existing to which they could be added, but the ancient Jewish church, of which all the apostles and disciples of our Lord were members. If the Gentiles, therefore, were added to the old church, or, as the text has it, were grafted in among them, and with them did partake of the root and fatness of the olive-tree, then it is evident, that the ancient church continued to exist, and no new one was formed at the calling in of the Gentiles. And then I conclude:
3. That infants were in a state of membership, in that very church to which the Gentiles were joined. And this must certainly be true, because they were grafted into that church, of which infants are, by the Baptists themselves, granted to have been members. And then, it is plain that infants made a part of that church, the pure church of primitive apostolic times. This conclusion must needs be admitted, unless any one will affirm, that the ancient church state was entirely dissolved; or else, that the Gentiles were not united to this ancient church. And to affirm either of these, will be to affirm against the word of God in general, and this text in particular. And herein the cause of the Baptists is ruined both ways; for if they maintain, that the old church was dissolved, and the Gentiles formed into a new one, their cause is ruined, by maintaining it against the word of God. But if they grant that the Jewish church continued, and that the Gentiles were grafted in among them, which is the real truth, then their cause is ruined that way. For then, as infants were in church-fellowship, in what is called the primitive apostolic church, it follows, that those societies, who admit infants to fellowship, act agreeably to the apostolic pattern; and consequently all those societies, who refuse to admit them, are in error.
IV. Eph. ii. 14. “For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us.”
1. The terms [both and us] in this place, mean Jews and Gentiles. 2. A partition is that which separates one society or family from another. 3. It is said to have been broken down by Jesus Christ, who is called our peace, because he made peace by the blood of his cross. 4. The breaking down of a partition wall, brings the two societies, or families, into one. From this passage, the very same conclusions must be drawn as from the preceding:
1. That the Jewish church continued as before, and was not dissolved at the calling in of the Gentiles; and the reason is, the taking down of a partition implies no dissolution of any society.
2. That the Gentiles were not formed into a new church: because the breaking down of a partition united them to the Jewish church, and “made both one.”
3. The infants were in actual membership, in that church to which the Gentiles were united; because adults and infants being in fellowship among the Jews, the removal of the partition brought adults and infants into union with the Gentiles. And then, the point is clearly gained, namely, that infants hold the same place among the Gentiles, as they held before among the Jews.
I again affirm, that the point is evidently carried, unless one of these three things can be maintained: 1. That God excluded infants before the partition was taken down; or, 2. at the time it was taken down; or, 3. at some time after. For if one or other of these cannot be supported, then infants retain their right to church-membership to this day. Can any one maintain the first; that God excluded infants before the partition wall was broken down?—Upon what period will he fix?—And by what scripture will he support it?—Will any one affirm the third; that God excluded them after the partition was taken down?—I suppose not. For that would be granting that the Gentiles continued some time, i.e. till the exclusion took place in fellowship, in that church in which infants were members. And then, I might ask again, in what time did the expulsion take place? And where is it recorded in the word of God?—But I suppose, that he who contends for such an exclusion, will affirm the second; that infants were excluded at the time the partition wall was broken down. If so, I ask, who did exclude them? And how was it done? It could not be done by the mere taking down of the partition wall; for the taking down the partition unites those who before were separate, but does not exclude any.
But if they were excluded, it must be done either expressly or implicitly. The first is not true; for there is no express exclusion of infants in all the Scriptures. And the second will not do for a Baptist; for, as he will not admit implicit proof on the side of infants, so neither can he urge implicit proof against them. But let him take the advantage of implication; and say, that infants are excluded from church-membership, by all those places which require faith and repentance, &c. in order to baptism. To this I reply, that these places of Scripture can no more exclude infants from membership, than they exclude them from glory. And the fallacy of all this has been already fully evinced, when the second argument against infant baptism was considered: and to that part, for his satisfaction, I refer the reader. If, then, they were not excluded before the partition was taken down, nor at the time, nor at any time since, they were not excluded at all. And then the consequence will be, that infants, according to the will of God, are possessed of a right to church-fellowship under the present dispensation, and to the present day.
By these four passages, all relating to God’s dispensation towards the Gentiles, it appears, that the church-membership of infants was left undisturbed, and was carried forward into the Gentile church; where it continues still the same as when first instituted. And the importance of this fact, in the present inquiry, is so very considerable, that whoever admits it, must be compelled to admit the right of infants to baptism, as a necessary consequence. Now, that God did ordain their church-membership has already been evinced, and granted by Baptists; and that to the present day, it has never been annulled, it what I am engaged to prove. I will, therefore, in addition to these four Scriptures, which of themselves clearly prove the fact, bring forward a variety of evidence, which serves to corroborate this important truth.
1. There is in the New Testament no law whatever to set aside the primitive right of infants to church-membership.
If a law could be found, in the New Testament, to repeal that which had been established in the Old, I grant freely, that all that has been said on the four places of Scripture, would signify nothing. But if no such law exist, the reasoning on the preceding passages will not only remain untouched, but will acquire a livelier force from that very fact. I need not prove to a Baptist, that the New Testament contains no law, by which infant membership is prohibited; he readily grants it; but adds in reply, that there was no necessity that such a law should be framed. Let us examine the thought.
If indeed nothing had been done respecting infants, this answer would
have been a good one; but when the church-membership of infants is considered
as an ancient establishment, the answer is nothing to the purpose. For as the case in reality stood, the want of
a law to set aside infant membership left it in its original state, to continue
down to the end of time. And how could
it be otherwise? For who in this world
was to alter it? It came down to Gentile
times, in all the force an establishment can be supposed to have, or need to
have, in order to its continuance. It
had the precept of God—it had the partiality of parents—it had the practice of
near two thousand years. If such an
institution as this needed no law to set it aside, which is what the Baptists
affirm; the true reason must be, because it was not the design of God to set it
aside. And what could have been a
greater proof of the design of God to perpetuate it, than taking no measures to
stop its progress? So that he, who
grants that no such law was made, does in effect admit, that it is now a
standing ordinance in the
But though a Baptist admits there is no express law against their membership and baptism, yet he affirms that the requirement of faith and repentance does of itself exclude infants. This is the purport of the Baptists’ second argument against infants, which I have proved to be a mere sophism. For when faith and repentance are required, in order either to baptism or salvation, a very easy distinction will make it plain, that infants are not excluded in either case. And this distinction is easy and obvious to every person.
1. It was a very easy one to a Jew. For while he knew that infants were received into the church by circumcision, he likewise knew that every adult who was circumcised, put himself under immediate obligation to confess his sins, to bring his sacrifice, and to conform to all the laws of that church. He was very sensible an infant could not do this; and yet he saw it right to circumcised the infant. So when he heard of faith, and repentance, and confession of sin, respecting baptism, as a medium of entering into the church, he had nothing to do but to use the same distinction, and all would be plain and easy as before.
2. The distinction is easy to a Paedobaptist. For he knows, that if the person be an adult, he must discover a disposition suited to the nature and design of the ordinance; but he knows, at the same time, that this was never designed to affect an infant, and that it can be no bar to his baptism, or blessedness.
3. This distinction is easy to a Baptist. For notwithstanding he is well persuaded, that he who believeth not shall not be saved, et he knows an infant may be saved, though an infant do not believe. All this to him is easy and natural, and nothing in the world more plain. If this be so easy a distinction, it may be asked, why cannot a Baptist carry it to baptism, as well as to any thing else? I answer, he can if he please; for it arises from no defect of understanding that he does not do it;—but it is an unpleasant thing to employ a distinction, so as to destroy one’s own sentiments.
In short, it is only considering, that an infant is not an adult, and that an adult is not an infant, than which nothing can be more easy; and then the requirement of faith and repentance is no more a law against the membership and baptism of infants, than it is against their salvation. All I meant here, was to affirm that there is no law, in the New Testament, to overrule the church-membership of infants; and this is a corroborating evidence, that their membership, which had been divinely instituted, continues the same down to the present time.
2. The Jews, at large, had no apprehension of the exclusion of infants; they neither oppose nor approve, which they doubtless would have done, if such an exclusion had taken place
This is a circumstance which merits particular attention, and has no small influence upon the present question. For as every material alteration in old customers is apt to stir up some opposition; so, had such a change as this been introduced, by which the infant offspring would have been put back from their former place in the church of God, it must have furnished occasion to a variety of animadversions: some, perhaps, might have been for it, while many would have opposed the new plan. That this would have happened, had such a revolution taken place, will appear still more certain, if we consider the nature of such a change, and the persons who would have felt themselves hurt by its introduction.
1.
As to the change itself, it had a tendency to affect in
a very sensible part. And this is a
clear case, whether we consider the tender age of the subjects—or their
number—or the privilege to which they were admitted—or the length of time
through which the practice had been carried—or lastly, the divine authority
which gave rise to that practice. Here
is a practice of two thousand years’ standing.
The privilege was that of admitting infants to membership in the
2.
On the other hand, if we take into consideration the
character of those persons among whome this customer had prevailed, and among
whom it is supposed to have ceased, we shall have sufficient reason to think it
impossible that a custom of this nature should be abrogated, and they not
oppose a single word. As to their
character, it is certain, that, a few only excepted, they were, upon the whole,
the deadly enemies of Christ and his doctrine.
They were strongly attached to the forms and ceremonies of
religion. They would wrangle for a rite,
quarrel for a fast, and almost fight for a new moon. Every one knows what disturbance they made in
the
Now is it possible, that such a change could be brought about, and among
such a people, in a manner so still and silent, that in all the New Testament
we do not read, that they ever said a word about it, for or against? No priest nor publican; no pharisee, lawyer,
or libertine; neither pious nore
profane; neither zealous, moderate, or
lukewarm, in all the
3.
Our Lord and his apostles take special notice of
infants, and, instead of excluding them, they speak of them as still possessing
a right to membership in the
The notice taken of infants by our Lord and his apostles, I call special;
because it is not such as God takes of his creatures in a way of common
providence; as the giving of food to a stranger, the satisfying the desire of
every living thing, or hearing the cry of a young raven when he calls upon
him. Such notice as this, God takes of
all his creatures. But that which I now
mean relates to matters of another nature, religious matters, the things of the
I. Luke ix. 47,48. “And Jesus took a child, and set him by him, and [‘when he had taken him in his arms,’ Mark ix. 36.] he said unto them, Whosoever shall receive this child, in my name, receiveth me: And whosoever shall receive me, receiveth him that sent me: For he that is least among you all, the same shall be great.” In this passage we have three things very observable:
1. The subject spoken of, a little child. There can be no doubt, but this was a child in regard of his age; as the circumstance of our Lord’s taking him in his arms, makes this certain beyond dispute. And it is also evident, that what our Lord said did not apply to this child alon, as though something peculiar to himself led our Lord so to speak; since he makes it a thing general and common to other children. The words of Mark are, “Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name.” He meant, therefore, that child in his arms, and other little children like him.
2.
The action respecting this child. “Whosoever shall receive this child in my
name.” To receive a person is to treat
him suitably to his character, place, and station. John i. 11. “He came unto his own, and his
own received him not.” Rom. xiv. 1. “Him
that is weak in the faith receive ye.”
To receive a person in the name of Christ, is to treat him as one
belonging to Christ, as one in visible union with him, as a member of that
church, of which he is the head. Matt.
x. 40. “He that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me.” This is spoken of the apostles of Christ, and
intends a treatment suitable to their character, and the relation they stood in
to him. So John xiii. 20. Then the meaning is, Whosoever shall receive
this child, or one of such children, in my name, i.e. as persons belonging to me, and in visible union with myself,
receiveth me, i.e. treateth me as the
visible head of the
Whosoever shall receive this child, or one of such children, in my name! Remarkable phrase! I have pondered it in my own mind, and wish to submit it to any casuist, with this question: is it possible to receive a person in the name of Christ, without considering that person as visibly belonging to Christ? I own, that to me, it appears impossible. But as Christ knows best what his own words imply, he shall determine the question. Mark ix. 41. “Whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ.” So to give to any in his name, is to give to them, because they belong to Christ. And then, when Christ speaks of receiving little children in his name, we are to consider little children as visibly belonging to him. And if they visibly belong to him, who is Head of the church, it is because they visibly belong to that church, of which he is Head.
3.
The reason of this action. This reason is twofold: 1. As it respected God and Christ; “Whosoever
shall receive this child in my name, receiveth me; and whosoever receiveth me,
receiveth him that sent me.” The force
of the reason lies in this; receiving little children in Christ’s name, i.e. treating them as visibly belonging
to him, is showing a proper regard to God and Christ. But why should this be considered as showing
a proper regard to God? I answer, I know
no reason in the world by one: and that
is, because God had long before constituted infants visible members of his own
church, and still continued to them the same place and privilege. 2. As it respected themselves. “He that is least among you all, the same
shall be great.” This reason suggests
three things: 1. our Lord speaks of his
disciples, in a collective capacity, as forming a religious society or church;
“He that is least among you all.” And
this, indeed, was truly the case; for these disciples, with others, were
branches in the olive-tree; and such branches as were not broken off. 2. Our Lord speaks of them, as having little
children in their society or church; ‘He that is least among you all, the same
shall be great.” Now, though it is true,
that adults on some accounts may be called little children, yet the term
[least] cannot mean adults in this place; because this is given as a reason why
they should receive this little child.
For what God will do for an adult can be no motive to the receiving an
infant. If we say, God can make that
adult, which you deem very little, to become great; therefore receive this
little child: this would be no reason at all.
But if it be taken thus; God can make the least child in your community
to become great, therefore receive this little child; the reasoning will be
good, and becoming the wisdom of Christ.
And this is no more than a plain fact; children were at this time the
acknowledged members of the
Mark x. 14. “But when Jesus saw
it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to
come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the
The persons who were brought are said by Mark to have been “young children”, our Lord calls them “little children,” and Luke calls them “infants.” There can be no doubt but they were such as were in an infantile state. The design, for which they were brough, is said to be, that he should put his hands on them, and pray. Some of the Baptists suppose they were diseased children, and were brought to our Lord to be healed; but of this there is nothing said. It is most likely they were brought to receive the benediction of Christ. Mark x. 16.
That this passage regards infants, as continuing in a state of church-membership, which is all I produce it for, will appear by considering of whom our Lord spake, and what he spake of them.
1.
Of whom he spake.
There can be very little difficulty on this part of the subject, as we
are plainly told, what the persons were who were brought to him, and of whom it
is evident he spake. Some of the
Baptists remarking upon the phrase ton
toiouton, of such, or of such like, affirm that our Lord meant adults of a
child-like disposition, and that of these, and not of the infants, he said, Of
such is the
2.
What he spake of them:
of such is the
Though to affirm, that our Lord, by the kingdom of God,
intended a state of glory, does not militate against, but rather concludes for
the church-membership of infants; there are some considerations which serve to
evince that our Lord intended the church on earth chiefly, if not only; for I
have some doubt whether he did not intend both, though the church more
particularly. It is to be observed, in
the first place, that these words, “of such is the
It may be further remarked, that it is highly reasonable to
conclude, that our Lord intended the same reason, for infants coming to him, as
he had urged to others, for their receiving him. Others were to receive infants in his name;
and with this to enforce it, that whosoever received them in his name, received
him, &c. This expression denotes a
relation to himself; as if he had said, Receive them, because they belong to
me, receive them as you would a disciple.
This is a reason that has respect to present relation; and if it be
natural to suppose, that our Lord gives a similar reason for their coming to him,
the
I only introduce this to show, that our Lord, in saying, Of
such is the
Acts ii. 38,39. “Then Peter said unto them, Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ; for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.”
As this passage is only brought forward to show, that infants are spoken of in the New Testament, as church-members, agreeable to the ancient dispensation nof God; I shall confine myself to these three conclusions:
I. That the phrase, “to you, and to your children,” intends adults and infants.
II. That this promise must comprehend adults and infants, wherever it comes, even as long as God shall continue his word to us.
III. That infants are placed in the same relation to baptism, as they were of old to circumcision.
These I shall now proceed to evince; and in the first place I affirm:
I. That the phrase, To you and to your children, intends adults and infants. This may be proved by considering:
1. The resemblance between this promise and that in Gen. xvii. 7. “To be a God unto thee, and unto thy seed after thee.” The resemblance between these two lies in two things; 1. Each stands connected with an ordinance, by which persons were to be admitted into church-fellowship; the one by circumcision, the other by baptism.
Both agree in phraseology; the one is, “to thee, and to thy see;” the other is, “to you and to your children.” Now every one knows that the word “seed” means children; and that children means seed; and that they are precisely the same. From these two strongly resembling features, viz. their connexion with a similar ordinance, and the sameness of the phraseology, I infer, that the subjects expressed in each, are the very same. And as it is certain that parents and infants were intended by the one; it must be equally certain that both are intended by the other.
2. The sense, in which the speaker must have understood the sentence in question. The promise is, to you and to your children.
In order to know this, we must consider who the speaker was, and from what source he received his religious knowledge. The Apostle, it is evident, was a Jew, and brought up in the Jewish church. He knew the practice of that church, with respect to those who were admitted to be its members. He knew, that he himself had been admitted in infancy, and that it was the ordinary practice of the church to admit infants to membership. And he likewise knew, that in this they acted on the authority of that place, where God promises to Abraham, “to be a God unto him, and to his seed.” Now if the Apostle knew all this; in what sense could he understand the term children, as distinguished from their parents? I have said, that children, [tekna] and seed, [sperma] mean the same thing. And as the Apostle well knew, that the term seed intended infants, though not mere infants only; and that infants were circumcised, and received into the church, as being the seed; what else could he understand, by the term children, when mentioned with their parents? Those who will have the Apostle to mean, by the term children, adult posterity only, have this infelicity attending them, that they understand the term differently from all other men; and this absurdity that they attribute to the Apostles a sense of the word, which to him must have been the most unfamiliar and forced. And, therefore, that sense of the word for which they contend, is the most unlikely of all to be the true one, because it is utterly improbable that a person should use a word in that sense which to him, and to all the world beside, was altogether unfamiliar.
3. In what sense his hearers must have understood him, when he said, “The promise is to you, and to your children.”
The context informs us, that many of Peter’s hearers, as he himself was, were Jews. They had been accustomed for many hundred years to receive infants, by circumcision, into the church ;and this they did, as before observed, because God had promised to be a God to Abraham, and to his seed. They had understood this promise, to mean parents and their infant offspring; and this idea was become familiar by the practice of many centuries. What then must have been their views, when one of their own community says to them, “The promise is to you, and to your children?” If their practice of receiving infants was founded on a promise exactly similar, as it certainly was; how could they possibly understand him, but as meaning the same thing, since he himself used the same mode of speech? This must have been the case, unless we admit this absurdity, that they understood him in a sense to which they had never been accustomed.
How idle a thing it is, in a Baptist, to come with a lexicon in his hand, and a criticism in his head, to inform us that tekna, children, means posterity! Certainly it does, and so it means the youngest infants. The very tikto, from which it comes, signifies to bring forth, i.e. the offspring. And are not infants of that number? But the Baptists will have it that tekna, children, in this place, means only adult posterity. And, if so, the Jews to whom he spoke, unless they understood him in a way in which it was morally impossible they should, would infallibly have understood him wrong. Certainly all men, when acting freely, will understand words in that way which is most familiar to them; and nothing could be more familiar to the Jews, than to understand such a speech, as Peter’s, to mean adults and infants. So that if the Jews, the awakened Jews, had apprehended the Apostle to mean only adults, when he said, “To you and your children;” they must have had an understanding of such a peculiar construction, as to make sense of a word, which to them was totally unnatural and forced, to become familiar and easy.
We should more certainly come at the truth, if, instead of idly criticizing, we could fancy ourselves Jews, and in the habit of circumcising infants, and receiving them into the church. And then, could we imagine one of our own nation and religion, to address us in the very language of Peter in this text, “The promise is to you and your children;” let us ask ourselves, as in the sight of God, whether we could ever suppose him to mean adult posterity only? Or if, instead of putting ourselves in the situation of Jews, we should suppose the Apostle to address the members of the Church of England, in the same phraseology, as he did the Jews, can any person doubt, whether they would understand him to mean adults and infants? It is certainly impossible. And why? Because they have been for ages in the habit of receiving infants into the church. Just so it was with the Jews when the apostle addressed them; and, therefore, they could no more have understood him, as meaning to exclude infants, than the members of the Church of England would by the use of the same phrase.
I have been endeavoring to prove that both Peter, who spoke, and the Jews, who were his hearers, must have understood the promise in the text to mean adults and infants; because such a meaning would be to them the most natural and obvious, both from their own habit and practice, and from its exact resemblance to that promise on which their practice was founded, and by which their habit was formed. But since Mr. Booth and all the Baptists will have it to mean no such thing, I shall only say, as Mr. Booth does in his answer to Dr. Williams, page 274, “Then Dr. Samuel Johnson might well say, though a man, accustomed to satisfy himself with the obvious and natural meaning of a sentence, does not easily shake off his habit, yet a true-bred lawyer never contents himself with this sense when there is another to be found.” “My opponent,” says Mr. Booth to Dr. Williams, seems to have imbibed the spirit of Dr. Johnson’s true-bred lawyer; for he cannot be at all content with the obvious and natural meaning, &c.” Mutato nominee, &c. This is true of Mr. Booth.—I am to prove in the next place:
II. That this promise must comprehend adults and infants wherever it comes, let it come wherever it may.
The Apostle, in applying this promise, distinguishes those to whom it is to apply into present and absent. The first class were his hearers; the second he describes two ways—all that are afar off—as many as the Lord our God shall call. To each of these classes, viz. Those who were present, and those who were absent, he applies the promise in the text. To those who were present, the promise is, to you and to your children;—to as many as our God shall call, the promise is to you and your children. Let the promise come to what persons soever it may, it must come to them and to their children; because the promise must be the same wherever God shall send it. I have already proved that the words, you and your children, mean adults and infants; and both belong in the promise, it must therefore belong to each: to you adults and to your infants, who are present; to you adults, who are afar off, and to your infants; to as many adults as the Lord out God shall call, and their infants. That this is true may be proved by considering the essence or nature of the promise.
There are two things which enter into the essence of a promise: it must contain some good—it must be made to some person or persons. That these two belong to the essence of a promise appears by this, that it either be taken away, there can be no promise—e.g. I will be a God to thee and to thy seed; the good in this promise is God himself—the persons were Abraham and his seed. If the good be taken away, it will then be no promise; I will—to thee and to thy seed. The case will be the same if the persons are taken away; I will be a God—in either case it is no promise. So when a promise is made to different persons, one person is as essential to the promise as the other—e.g. I will be a God unto thee and to thy seed; the promise is as much to the seed as to Abraham, and as much to Abraham as to the seed; because both are essential to the promise.
Now the Apostle, expressing the essence or nature of the promise in the text, as it respects the objects, says, “The promise is to you and to your children.” Both parts, therefore, belong to the promise; it is essential to the promise this it be—to you;—it is likewise essential to it that it be to your children. And the case being so, we cannot take away either part without violating the essence of the promise. We have no more right to say, The promise is to you, but not to your children, than the pr