And then, it is plain that infants made a part of that
churrh, called by fome the gofpel church, the pure
church of primitive apoAolic^times. This conchjfioQ
mufl needs be* admitted, unlefs any one will affirm^
that the ancient church ftate was entirely diffolved ;
or elfe, that the Gentiles wer^ not united to this an-
cient Church. And to affirm either of thefe, will be
to affirm againft the word of God in general, and this
text in panicular. And herein the caufe of the Bap-
tifls is ruined both ways ; for if they maintain, tha^
the old church wasdiffolved, and the Gentiles ^brroed
into a new one, their caufe is ruined, by maintaining
againll the word of God. But if they grant that the
Jewiih church continued, and that the Gentiles were
grafted in among them, which is the real truth ; then
their caufe is ruined that way. For then, as infant^
were in church-fellowlliip, in what is called the pri^
mitive apoftolic church, it foUow^s, th?it thofe focie-
ties, who admit infants tp fellowlhip, a6l agreeable to
the apoftolic pattern ; and canfequently ail thofe focU
eties, who refufe to admit tb^em, ar«; in an error.
IV. Eph. ii. 14. " For he is our peace, who hath
jnade 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 fe-
parates one fociety or family from another. 3. It is
faid to have been broken down by Jefug Chrift, who
is called our peace, bccaufe he made peace by "the
blood of his crofs. 4. The bieaking down of a par*
tition wall, brirgs the two focieties, or fijmilies, into
one. From this paflage, the very fanae conclufion%
muft be drawn as from the preceding:
1. That the Jewiih church contmued as before,
and was not diffolvedat the calling in of the Gentiles ;
and the reafon is, the taking down of a partition im-
plies no diffoiution of any fociety.
OF INFANT BAPTISM. 53
2. That the Gentiles were not formed Into a new
ehurch : becaufe the breakuig down of a pai cition uni-
ted them to the Jewiih church, and '' made both on.^^"
3. The infants were in a6lual memberiliip, in that
church to which the Gentiles were united y '^ccaufe
adults and infants being in fenOwitfip among the Jev/s,
the removal of ihc partition brought adults and in-
fants into union with the Gentile S. And then, the
point is clearly gained, namely, that infants hold the
fame place among the Gentiles, as they held before
among the Jews.
I again affirm, that the point is evidently carried,
unlefs one of thefe 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 fonie time after. For If one orothi r of thefe
cannot be iupported, then infants retain their right to
church-memberlliip to this day. Can any one main-
tain the hrft ; that God excluded infants before the
partition wall was broken down ?— Upon what period
will be fix? — And by what Scripture will \vj. fupport
it: — Will any one alhrm the third ; that God exclu-
ded them after the partition was taken down ? — =1 iup-
pofe not. For that would l)e granting that the Gen-
tiles continued fome time, /. e. till the excluhon took
place in fellowihip, in that churcii In which infants
were members. And then, I might afk again, in
w*hat time did the expulfion take place I And v/here
is it recorded in the word of God ? — -But I fm^nofej
that he who contendsfor fuch ail exclidion, wiliaturn^
the fecond ; that infants were excluded at -the time
the partition wall was broken down, if fo, I afk, who
did excl.ide th«m i And how was it done 'i It could
not be done by the mere taking down of the partition
wall ; for the taking down the partition unites thofc
who before were feparate, but dovS not exclude any.
Bat if they were excluded, ii muft be done either
exprefsly or implicitly. The firll is not true ; for
there is no exprefs exclufion of infants in all the Icrip-
K 2
54 ARGUMENTS ON THJ «1DE
tures. And the fecond will not do for a Bapiift ; for,
as he will not admit imphcit proof on the fide of in*
fants, fo neither can he urge implicit proof againft
them. But let him take, the advantage of implicati-
on ; and fay, that infants are excluded from church-
memberfhip, by all thofe places which require faith
and repentance, hd in order to baptifm. To this I
reply, that thefe places of Scripture can no more ex-
clude infants from memberiliip, than they exclude
them from glory. And the fallacy of all this has been
already fully evinced, when the fecond argument
againft infant baptifm was confidcred ; and to that
part for his fatisfafSlion, I refer the reader. If, then,
they were note?icluded before the partition was taken
down, nor at the time, nor at any time fmce, they
were not excluded at all. And then the confequence
will be, that infants, according to the will of God, are
poflVffcd of a right to church-fellowftiip under the
prefent difpenfation, and to the prefent day.
By thefe four paffages, all relating to God's difpen-
fation towards the Gentiles, it appears, that the
church-memberfnip of infants was left undifturbed,
jind was carried forv/ard into the Gentile church;
where it continues {^11 the fame as when fir ft inftitu-
ted. And the importance of this fa<5^, in the prefent
inquiry, is fo very confiderable, that whoever admit*
it, muft be compelled to admit the right of infants to
baptifm, as a necelTary confequence. Now, that God
did ordain their church-memberftiip has already been
evinced, -and granted by Baptifts ; and that to the pre-
fent day, it has never been anuUed, is what I am en-
gaged to prove. I will, therefore, in addition to thefe
four fcriptures, which of therafelves clearly prove the
faiSl, bring forward a variety ol evidence, which ferve
to corroborate this important truth.
1. There is in the New Teftament no law whate-
ver to fet afide the primitive right of infants to church-
memberfhip.
If a law could be found, in the New Teftament, to
repeal that which had been eftabliihed in the Old, I
9f XHrAVV li?fiSM. S5
gratit freely, that all that has been faid on the four
places of fcripture, would fignify nothing. But if no
fuch law exilt, the reafoning on the preceding patTa*'
ges will not o.nlv remain untouched, but will acquire
a livelier force from that very fa(5l. I need not prove
to a Baptift, that the New Teftament contains no
law, by which infant memberlhip is prohibited ; he
readily grants it ; but adds in reply, that there was
no neceffity that fuch a law fhould be framed. Let
us examine the thought.
If indeed nothing had been done refpe6ling infants,
this anfwer would have been a good one ; but when
the church-memberibip of infants is confidered as an
ancient eftabliihment, the anfwer is nothing to the
purpofe. For as the cafe in reality flood, the want
of a law to fet afi Je infant memberihip, left it in its ori-
ginal ftate, to continue down to the end of time. And
how could it be otherwife ? For who in this world
was to alter it? It came down to Gentile times, in all
the force an eftablilhmentcan be fuppofcd 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 pradlice of near two thoufand years. If fuch
an inftitution as this needed no law to fet it afide,
which is what the Baptifts affirm : the true reafon
muft be becaufe it v/as not the deiign of God it Ihould
be fet afide. And what could have been a great-
er proof of the dcfign of God to perpetuate it, than ta-
king no meafures to Hop its progrefs ? So that he,
who grants that no fuch law, was made, does in ef-
fect admit, that it is now a (landing ordinance in the
church of God, to receive infants to memberihip.
And then he muft grant too, that they (hould be bap-
tized ; becaufe there is no other way of receivingthem.
But though a Bapiitl admits there is no exprefslaw
againft their memberftiip and baptifm ; yet he affirms
that the requirement of faith and repentance docs of
itfelf exclude infants. This is the purport of the
Baptifts' fecond argument againft infants, which I
have proved to be a mere fopTiifm. For when faith
$6 ARGUMENTa ON THE ilDE
and repentance are required, in order either to bap-
tifm or faivation ; a very ealy dilUnclion will muke
it plain, that infants are not excluded in either cafe.
Au J this dillin6\ion is eafy and obvious to every per-
fon.
1. It was a very eafy one to a Jew. For while he
knew that infants were received into the church by
circumcifiDn, he like wife knew that every adult who
was circumcifed, put himfclf under immediate obli-
gation to confefs his fms, to bring his facriftce, and to
conform to all the laws of that church. He was very
fenfible an infant r.ould not do this; and yet he faw
it »ight to cirtumcife ihe infant. So when he heard
of faith, and repentance, and confeffion of fin, re-
fpeiSling baptifm, as a medium of entering into the
church ; he had nothing to do, but to ufe the fame
diltiruStion, and all would be plain and eafy as before.
2. The diftinciion is eafy to a P»(iobaptifi. For
he knows, that if the perfon be an adult, he- mufl: dif-
cover a difpofilion fuited to the nature and dcfign of
the ordinance ; but he knows, at the fame time, that
this was never defigned to affetSl an infant, and that
it can be no bar to his baptifm, or bkflednefs.
3. This didindlion is eafy to a Bapiifi. For not-
withilanding he is well perfuaded, thathe whobeiuv-
eth not fliail not be faved ; yet he knows an infant
mav be faved, though an infant do not believe. All
this to him is eafy and natural, and nothing in the
world more plain, if this be fo eafy a diiiin61ion, it
may be afked, why cannot a Baptift carry it to bap-
tifm, as well as t^) any thing elfe ? 1 anfwer, he can if
he pleafe ; for it arifes from no defedl of underiiand-
ing that he does not do it ;- — but it is an unpleafant
thing to employ a dillin6lion, fo as to dellroy one's
ov/n fentiments.
In (hort, it is only confideriug, that an infant is not
an adult, and that an adult is not an infant, than
which nothing can be more eafy ; and then the re-
quir« ment of faith and repentance is no more a law
againft the memberlhip and baptifm of infants, than
Oy H^FANT BAPTISM. 57
\i is agninft their falvatlon. All I meant here, was to
aiBrm that there is no law, in the New Teftament,
to overrule the church-memberfhip of infants , and
tnis is a corroborating evidence, that their member-
Clip, which had been divinely inftituted, continues
the fame down to the prefent time.
2. The Jews, at large, had no apprehenfion of the
excliifion of infants ; they neither oppofe nor approve,
â– which they doubdefs would have done, if fuch an exr
clufion had taken place.
This is a circumftance v/hich merits particular at-
tention, and has no fmali influence upon the prefent
queftion. For as every material alteration in old
cuftoms is apt to fllr up fome oppofition ; fo, had fuch
a change as this been introduced, by which the ini'ant
offspring would have been put back from their form-
er place in the church of God, it muft have furnilhed
Qccafion to a variety of animadverfions : fome, per-,
baps, might have been for it, while many would havo
etppoftrd the new plan. That this would have hap-
pened, had fuch a revolution taken place, will appear
flill more certain, if we coufidcr the nature of fuch a
change, and the perfons who would have felt thcm-
felves hurt by its introdu6lion.
1. As to the change itfelf, it had a tendency to af-
fe6l in a very fenfible part. And this is a clear cafe,
whether we confidcr the tender age of the fubje6ls— •
or their number- — or the privilege to which they were
admitted— 'Or the length of time through which th«
practice had been carried— or laftly, the divine au«
thority which gave rife to that pra6lice. Here is a
practice of two thoufand years ftanciing. The privi-
lege was that of admitting infants to memberihip in
the church of God-»-thefe infants formed a number in
Ifrael exceedingly great. And this praclice did not
take its rife fro»^ fome dark verbal or written traditi-
on ; but flood fupported by the lively oracles of God.
Such was the cuftom which the Baptifts fuppofe wa»
anulled about this time.
58 ARGUMENTS ON THE SIDE
2. On the other hand, if we take into confideration
the characlor of thofe ptrfons among whom this tuf-
toni had prevailt;d, and among whom it is I'uppofcd
to have ceafed, we Ihali have fufficient reafon to think
it impoiTibie that a cuftom of this nature fhould be
abrogated, and they not oppofe a fingle word. As
to their chara<5ler, it is certain, that, a few only ex-
cepted, they were, upon the whole, the deatlly ene-
mies of Chrifl and his do6lrine. They w ere ftrongly
'b*
They would v. r angle for a rite, quarrel for a fad, and
almoft fight for a new moon. Ever) one knows what
dillurbance they made in the church of God, about
fuch things as thefe.
Now is it poffible, that fuch a change conld be
brought about, and among fuch a peopk, in a man-
ner fo ftill and filent, that in all the New Teftamcnt
we do not read, that they ever faid a word al>out it,
for or againtt ; No pried nor pulilican ; no pharifee,
lawyer, or libertine j neither pious nor profane ; nei-
ther zealous, moderate, or lukewarm, in all the land
oflirael, oppofe a fingle fentence, or afk a reafon
why. But fmce this muft have been a change fo re-
markable ,• and they, among whom it is fuppofed to
have happened, not the moft modeil ; how came they
to be fo filent, fo ihy f What made them fo paifive,
fo peaceable, fo complying? Nothing. They were
neither complying, paTive, nor peaceable, nor ilovr
to fpeak, nor ilow to wrath, when any old forms were
invaded ; but they were very nmch fo about the
change in qaeftion : And the true reafon of it is, it
never took place. There is another evidence, that
the church-mamberihip of infants v/as never anulleJ
by God or man ; .^nd that is this :
3. Oar Lord and his apoftles take fpecial notice of
infants, and, Inftead o[ excluding them, they fpeak
of theru as i^ll polTeifing a right lo memberihip in tlic
•hurch of God.
The notice taken of infants, by our Lord and hii
apofll<^5, I call fpiicial ; becaufe it is not fuch as God
OF INFANT EA.PTiaM. S9
takes of his creatures \.i a wav of common providence ;
as t'«>e giving of food to a ft ranger, the fatisfying the
defne of every living thing, or hearing the cry of a
5'oung raven when he culls upon him. Such notice as
this, God takes of 2II his creatures. But that which
I now mean relates to matters of another nuture, re-
ligious matters, the things ot the kingdom of God,
and our Lord Jefus Chrift. The paffages 1 fliall
bring are not intended to prove any new irftituiion
refpeeling infants, for nothing of this kind took place ;
but as their church-memberihip had been long fettled,
I only mean to lliow that our I^ord fpeaks oi them
under that idea, as the acknov/ledged members of the
church of God. And hereby I mean to evince, that
their memberlhip, which had been long eftablifhed,
was never anuiled to the prefent day. To this end I
alledge,
I. Luke IX. 47, 48. *' And Jefus took a child arcl
fet him by him, and [" when he had taken him in his
arms,'' Mark ix. 36.] he faid unto them, Whofoever
iliall receive this child, in my name, receiveth me :
and whofoever fliall receive me, receiveth him that
fent me : For he that is leaft among you all, the
fame Ihall be great." In this paffage we have three
things very obfervahlc :
1. 7he fubje6l fpoken of, a little child. There can
be no doubt, but this was a child in regard of his age ;
as the circumftance of our Lord's taking him in his
arms, makes this certain beyond difpute. And it is
alfo evident, that what our Lord faid did not apply
to this child alone, as thougli fomething peculiar to
himffflf led our Lord fo to fpcak ; fmce he makes it a
thing general and common to other children. 1 he
words of Mark are, *' Wliofoever fliall receive one of
fuch children in my name." He mennt, therefore,
that child in his arms, and other little children like him.
. 2. The a
(hill receive this child in my name." To receive a
perfon is to treat him fuitably to his character, place,
^d ftation. John i. IL '' He came unto his own, and
60 ARGUMENTS OW TUt SIDE
his own received him not." Roirs, xiv. 1. " Hltk
that is weak in the faith receive ye.^' To receive a
perfon in the name of Chrilt, is to treat him as one
belonging to Chrift, as one in vifshle union with him,
as a member of that church, of which he is the head.
Matt. X. 49. " He that receiveth you, receiveth me ;
and he that receiveth me, receiveth hi m that fent me."
This IS fpoken of the apoftles of Chrift, and intends
a treatitient fuitable to their chara6ler, and the rela^
tion they ftood in to him. So John xiii. 20. Then
the meaning is, Whofoever Ihall receive this child,
or one of fuch children, in my name, i. e, as perfon«
belonging to me, and invifible union withmyfelf, re-
ceiveth me, /. e, treateth me as the vifible head of the
church of God.
Whofoever fhall receive this child, or one of fuch
children in my name 1 Remarkable phrafe 1 1 have
pondered it in my own mind, and wilb to fubmit it
to any cafuiit, with this queftion : Is it poflible to re-
ceive a perfon in the name of Chrift, without confi-
clering that perfon as vifibly belonging to Chrift.'' I
own, that to me it appears impofliblt*. But as Chrift
knows befl what his own words imply, he Ihall detef-
mine the queftion. Mark ix. 41. *' Whofoever ft^all
give you a cup of water to drink in my name, becaufte
ye belong to Chrift." So to give to any in his name,
is to give to them, becaufe they belong to Chrift.
And then, when Chrift fpeaks of receiving little chil-
dren in his name, we are to confickr little children
as vifibly belonging to him. And if they vifibly belong
to him, who is head of the church, it is becaufe they
vifiblv belong to that church, of which he is the head.
3. The reafon of this a6lion. This reafon is two-
fold: 1. As itrefpcded God and Chrift ; " Whofo-
ever ftiall receive this child in my name, receiveth
me ; and whofoever receiveth me, leceivcth him that
fent me." The force of thfe reafon lies in this ; re-
ceiving little children in Chrift's name, /. e, treiatiti^g
them as vifibly belonging to him, is Ihowin^a pr'oper
regard to God and Chrift^. Bat why Iliould this be
OF INFANT BAPTISM* 61
conliderecl as djowing a proper regard to God : I an-
fwer, I knownoreafon in the world but one: and that
is, becaufe God had long before conltituted infants
vifible members of his own church, and fcill continu-
ed to them the fame place and privilege. 2. As it rel-
pecled themfelves. " He that is leait among you all,
the fame fliall be great." This reafon fuggeiteth three
tldngs : 1. our Lord fpeaks of his difcipies, in a col-
]e
church ; " He that is leaft among you all." And this,
indeed, was truly the cafe ; for thefe difcipies, with
others, were branches in the oliye-tree ; and fucli
branches as were not broken off. 2. Our Lord fpeaks
of them, as having little children in their fociety or
church; *' He that is lead among you all, the fame
fliall be great." Now, though it is true, that adults
on fome accounts may be called little children, vet
the term [leaft] cannot mean adults in this place ; be-
caufe this is given as a reafon why they fhould receive
this little child. For what God will do for an adult
can be no motive to the receiving an infant. If we
fay, God can make that adull, which you deem very
little, to become great ; -therefore receive this little
child : this would be no reafon at all. But if it be ta-
ken thus ; God can make the leall child in your com-
munity to become great, therefore receive this little
.child ; the reafoning will be good, and becoming the
wifdom of Chrill. And this is no more than a plain
fa(5l ; children were at this time the acknowledged
members of the church of God. 3. O-irLord fpeaks
thus, to induce them to pay a proper regard to chil-
dren. "The leall among you fiiaii become great;
therefore receive this child in my name." Receiving
may refpccl the firlt ^61 of recognizing a perfon a
member of a church ; or all fubfequent x>^rs, by which
we treat them as fuch. Our Lord's exprefiion is ap-
plicable to both, and enjoins both on his difcipies.
This is one inlUmce of fpecial notice taken of infants,
F
♦'2 ARGUMF.NTS ON THE SIDE
in which they are coniidercd as holding a place in the
church of CrocL
jViiark X. 14. ** But uhen J( fiis faw it, he was much
fJifplraftd, and Add unto them, Suffer the little chil-
dren to come unto irje, and torbid them not : for c f
fueh is the kingdom of God.''
i The periuns who were brought, are faid by Mark
to have been young children, oui Lord calls them lit-
tle children, and Luke calls them infants. There can he
no doubt but they w^ere fuch as were in an infantile flate.
I'he defign, for which they were brought, is friid to be,
that he Ihould put his hands on them, and pray. Some
of the Baptifts fuppofe they were difeafed children, and
were brought to our Lord to be healed; but of this
there is nothing faid. It is moll likely they were brought
to receive the bencdi6lion of Chriil. Mark. x. 16.
That this paffage regards infants, as continuing in
a itate of diurch memberfhip, which is all I produce
tt lor, will appear by confidcring of whom our Lord
fpake, and what he fpake of them.
1. Of whom he fpake. Thert can be very little
difficulty on this part of the fubje(5l, as we are plainly
told, what theperfonswere who were brought to him,
and of whom it is evident he fpake. Some of the
Baptifts remarking upon the phrafe Ion tohntdn, of
fuch, or of fuch like, affirm that our Lord meant a-
dults of a child-like difpoiition, and that ofthefe, and
not of the infants, he faid, Of fuch is the kingdom of
God, This conftru6lion, which indeed has nothing
to fupport it, will appear very uncouth, when we con-
fidcr thefe words of our Lord, as a reafon for bring-
ing and permitting the little children to come to him :
Suff' r them to come unto me, for of fuch is the king-
dom of God. But this expofition, btfides that it
makes our Lord fpcak obfcurely, reprelents him as gi-
ving ^ reafon quite diftantfrom the iubje6l: ht was up-
on. For wht Teas a reafon for coming ihould be ta-
ken fron; thoft who are to come, and not from others ;
this expofition makes our Lord fay. Suffer thej>e to
oome, becaufe tho&e belong to the kingdom. To fay,
Of INFANT BAPTISM. 63
aJiilts belong to the kingdom of (iocl, is no good r^aA>n
for bringing infants to Chrill. It is a much better
One to fay, Suffer thefe little children to come, be-
caufe thefe little children, and others like them, be-
long to the kingdom of God. B jt if it be faid, others
belong to the kmgdom of God, becaufe diey are lik«*
infants, then infants muR belong to the kingdom of
God becaafe thev are like them. The truth is, our
Lord evidently fpeaks of i'.ifanib as he hrid doxod be-
fore, in the preceding palTage.
2. What he fpake of them: Offiich is the king-
dom of God ; that is, fuci\ belong to the kinglom.
Oar inquiry is, what kingdom did our Lord mean?
was it the charch, or a (late of gl^ry? If the Lord
meant the charch, then he his alferted wiiat I con-
tend for, that infants were fijoken of by hin», as mem-
bers of the charch ; and, therefore, the fin>l is eita-
bliihed. But the Baptills in general anderiiand this
of a (late of glory, and allow infants to belong to that,
but deny that they belong to the church. This, iii-
deed, is granting the greater, and den\ ing the* lef^ ;
and therefore an argument mav be taken, from what
they grant, to deftroy wuat tiiey deny ; that is, an
argument a mujore ad mimth\ if infants belo.jg to a
ftate of glory, -which iss tiie greater ; then much more
do they belong to a church (hue, which is the ieis. Be-
fules as the inPiituiion of a church is adiipeniatioii of
Ciod, which h ads to glory ; it isaljfurd to grant pcr-
fons a place in glory, and at the fame timodt-tiv chein
a place in that difpenfatioii which leads^ to it.
Though to attirm, that our Lord, by the klugdom
of God, intended a ilate of glorv, does Hot milirate
againft, but rather concludes for the char; h-mrmbf-r-
lliip of infants ; there are fome confiderations which
ferve to evince, that our Lord intended the church on