earth chiefly, if not only ; for i have foaio doubt wh< -
ther he did not intend both, thougli die church more
particularly. It is to be obferved, in the iirft pkce,
that thefe words, " of fuch is the kingdom of God,''
were fpoken to the apolllcs, as a reafor. for the ii fuf-
64 ARGUMENTS ON THE SIDE
ferirg, and a rebuke for their hindering, littVe chil-
dren to come unto him. Now it is always more nat-
ural, when we intend to reafon with, or rebuke any
perfon, to fix upon that as a reafon, which is mo ft fa-
miliar to him. The apoftles were well acquainted
with the memberlhip of infants in the church, as a
practice which had prevailed in their nation for many
centuries ; whereas they could know but little of the
fcate of infants with fefpc6l to glory. Now as the
reafon, why thefe little children Ihould be fuffered to
come, was, that they behmged to thei kingdom of
God ; and as this wasdefigned, at the famd time as a
rebuke ; it mufl be evident, that our Lord intended
that idea of the kingdom with which they were moft
famil-nr. For had it been meant of a itate of glory,
the apoR'es iMight very well have ])leaded ignorance ;
•Alt they could not be ignorant that infants belonged
to the church, and thtrefcrc the reproof could not
come home to them., but undtr that idea. For in
that, th'.y aiflcd contrary to a principle they knew, in
keeping thofe, wh'o belongc d to the church, from the
ch,!vch''y Head.
it mav be iurther remarked, that it is highly rea-
fonablcto conclude, that our Lord intended the fame
reafon, for infants coming to him, as he had urged
to others, for their receiving them. Others were to
receive infants in his name ; and with this to enforce
it, that whofoever received them in Ids name, re-
ceived him, &c. This expre'ilon denotus a relation
to himfclf ; as if he had faid, Receive them, becaufe
thev belong to me, receive them as you would a dif-
cijilc. This is a reafon that has refpe6l to prefent re-
hvuon ; and if it be natural to fuppoie, that our Lord
gives a^.fmiilar reafon for their coming to him, the
kingdom of God will not. mean a future itate of blef-
fedncfs, but a preft nt chuVch ftate, to which they be-
long. Moreover, it may be faid with iriuch more
truth of infants in general, and it is of fuch our Lord
fpeaks, that^iey belong to a church on earth, than to
a ftate of glory : Becaufe many may belong to the form-
OF INiANT BAPTISM. 65
cr who do not belong to the latter. And wher*ia*> it
cannot be laid of infants, as fuch, that ihvy btilong ;o
a ftate of glory, for then all would be f^A'erl, becaufe
all have been infants j but it could be fwld o( inlaius,
as infants, where our Lord was, that they belonged
to the church on earth.
I only introduce this to ihow, that our Lord, in
faxing, Of fuch is the kingdom of God, did recog-
nize infants as church-members. A ad ugainll {his
fenfe of the kingdom, as taeaning the church, the
Baptifts bring only one objection, "jiz, the iix:apacity
of inlants. But this is removed by the pra<5lice of
many centuries ; wiiich fliows that Ciod does not
judge of incapacitv, after the manner of men. What
oar Lord faid, as it proves the mecniverlhip of infants,
which is ull I brought it for, fo it is no more thai\
what was i'amiiiar to the whole naiion.
Acts ii. 38. 39. ** Tlien Petei- laid unto them, Re-
pent and be baptiied cvtry one of you, in the nunje
of Jefus Chrilt, for the remialon of fms, and ye ihi^il
receive the gift of the Holy Ghoil. For the ])romii"e
is unio you, and to your chii Iren, and to all thai are
afar off, even as many as ihe Lord our God ihali
call."
As this paffage is only brought forwf^rd v.o ihow,
that infants are fpoken of in the New^ Tcllament, as
church-members, agreea»/ie to the ancient diipenfati-
on of God ; I Ihall couiine myfeix to mcfe il^ree coa-
clufions.
L That the phrafe, **toyou,and to your children,''
intends adults and infants.
IL That this promife mufl com-prehend adults and
infants, wherever it comes, tvtii as long .is Ciod livall
continue his word to us.
II L That infants are placed in the fam^e relation
to baptifm, as they were of old to circuinciiion.
Thi^fe I (hall now prQC«^ed to evince ; and in liir
fir 11 place I affirm,
F2
O') All : .. .J. ... ON THE SIDE
1. liKVi: the phrafe, To you and to your children,
Fitcnds adults and infants. This may be proved by
' onfideiin,^,
i. The refethblance between this promife, and that
in Gen. xvii, 7. *^ To be a God unto thee, and un-
^o thy fed after thee." The refemblance between
thefe '• '■ -< in tvyo things ; 1. Each ftands connc<5l-
cd w linance, by \vhicl¥ perfons were to be
admrvted nilo church-fellowihip; the one by circum-
cifion, the odier by baptifm.
Both agree ir. phrafeology ; the one is, " to thee
and to thv^ fi^f^d ;^' the other is, '^ to you, and to your
children." Now every one knows that the word feed
means chiUben ; and that children means feed; and
that ihey are precifely the fame. From thefe two
ftrongly refembling features, viz, their connexion
■with a hmilar ordinance, and the famenefs of the
phrafeologv, I infer, that the fubjeCls cxpreffed m
each, are the very fame. And as it is certain that
parents and infants were intended by the one ; it muft
be equally certain that both are intended by the other.
2. The fenfe, in which the fpeaker muft have un-
derilood the fentence in queftion. The promife is,
to you and to your children.
In order to know this, we muft confider who the
i'peaker was, and from what fource he received his
religious knowledge. The Apoftle, it is evident, was
a Jew, and brought up in the Jewifti church. He
knew the practice of that church, witha*efpe6tto thofe
who were admitted to be its members. He knew,
that he himfelfhad been admitted in infancy, and
that it was the ordinary practice of the church to ad-
mit infants to memberlhip. And he likewife knew,
that in this they acled on the authority of that place,
where God promifes to Abraham, *' to be a God un-
to him, and to his feed." Now if the Apoftle knew
all this; in what fenfe could be underftand the term
children, as diftingiiilhed from their parents? I have
faid, that tehia children, and sperijia feed, mean the
tame thing. And as the Apoftle well knew, that the
OF INFAXT BAPTISM. 67
term f^-ed intended infants, though not mere infants
onlv ; and that infants were circumcifed, and receiv-
ed into the church, as being the feed ; what elfe
could he underftand, by the term children, when
mentioned with their parents ? Thofe who will have
the Apoftle to mean, by the term children, adult po-
tency only, have this infelicity attending them, that
ti^ev underftand the term differently from all o-her
men ; and this ahfurdity, that they attribute to the
Apoflle a fenfe of the word, which to him muft have
been the mod unfamiliar and forced. And, therefore,
that fenfe of the word for which they contend, is the
nioft unlikely of all to be the true one, becaufe it is ut-
terly improbable that a perfon fliould ufe a word in
that fenfe which to him, and to all the world befide,
was altogether unfamiliar.
3. In what fenfe his hearers mufl have underllood
him, when he faid, " The promife is to you, and to
your children.''
'1 he context inform.s us, that many of St. Peter's
hearers, as he himfelf was, were Jews. They had
been accuttomed for many hundred years to receive
infants, by circumcifion, into the church ; and this
they did, as before ohferved, becaufe God had pro-
mi fed to be a God to Abraham, and to his feed.
They had underflood this promife, to mean parents
and their infant offspring; and this idea was become
fmniliar by the practice of many centuries. What
th.m muft have been their view^s, when one of their
own community fays to them, " The promife is to
you, and to your children ?'' If their pra6lice of re-
ceiving infants was founded on a promife exa6lly fim-
ilar, as it certainly was ; how could they poffibly uti-
d^rftand him, but as meaning the fame thing, irince
he himfelf ufed the fame mode f)f fpeech ? Thismuil
have been the cafe, unUfs we admit this ahfurdity,
that they underftood him in a fenfe to which they had
never been accuftOiT.cd,
How idle a thing it is, in a Baptift, to come with
a lexicon in his hand, and a criticifm in his head, to
6s ARGUMENTS ON THE SIDE
inform us that tekna^ childrt-n, means poftentv I
Certainly it does, and fo means the youngefl infants.
The verb tikto^ from wbich it comes, fignifies, to
bring forth, ;. e. the offspring. And are not infants
of that number.? But the Baptifls will have it that tck*
na, children, in this place, means only adult pofteri-
ty. And, if fo, the Jews to whom he fpoke, unlets
they underilood him in a way in which it was moral-
ly irapofiible they fliould, would infallibly have un-
derilood him wrong. Certainly all men, when a6l-
ing freely, will underftand words in that way which
is moft familiar to them ; and nothing could be more
familiar to the Jews, than to underftand fiich a
fpeech as Peter's, to mean adults and infants. So
that if the JeT\'S, the awakened Jew«, had apprehen-
ded tht; Apoftle to mean only adults, when he faid^
'* To you and your children;" they mull have had
an underilanding of fuch a peculiar conPtru6lion, as
to make that fenie of a word, which to them was to-
tally unnatural and forced, to become familiar and
cafy.
We Hiould more certainly come at the truth, if,
inftead of idly criticifmg, we could fancy ourfclves
Jews, and in the habit of circumcifmg infants, and
receiving them into the church. And then, could
we imagine one of our own nation and religion, to
addrefs us in the very language of Peter in this text,^
" The promife is to you and your children ;" let us
*ik ourfelves, as in the fight of God, whether wc
could ever fuppofe him to mean adult pofterity only I
Or if, inftead of putting ourfelves in the fitaalion of
Jew3, we Ihould fuppofe the ApolUe to addrcfs the
members of the eftabliftument, in the fame phrafe-
ology, as he did the Jews, can any perfon doubt,
whether they would underftand him to mean adults
and infants? It is certainly impoifible. And why?
Besaufe they have been for ages in the hal)it of re-
ceiving infants into the church. Juft fo it was with
the Jews when the Apoftle addreffed them; and,
therefore, they could-no more have underftood him^
OF INFANT BAPTISM.
69
a, n^eaning to exclude infants, tban the member^
of the tftablimment «'Ould by the ufe of the lame
'*rhave been endeavouring to prove that both Pe-
ter whofnoke, and the Jews, who were nis hearers,,
rtnftl^.veunderftood the promife in the text to mean
adalts and infants ; becaufe fuch a meaning would be
o he«, the moft natural and obvious, boA rom
their own habit and practice, and from its exa6t
r^fembknce to that promife on which the.r praftice
w^s founded and by which their habit was ormed.
Bu fince Mr. Booth and all the Bapt:fts.will have it
to mean no fuch thing. I fnall only la,, as Mn £
does in his anfwer to Dr. Wilhams, page 274., 1 hen
Dr.Samtiel Johnfon might well fay, thottgh a man
accuftomed to lUisfy himfelf with *e obvious and
,v>tura! meaning of a fentence, does not ealUy Inake
off hit habit, f et a true-bred lawyer never contents
himfelf withthi-s fenfe when there i' j;"^^^"/"^^
foHn
o have imbibed the fpirit of Dr. Johnfon's true-bred
bw.^er ; fdr he caunot be at all content with the ol)-
v'^ou. and natural meaning, &c." Mutato nomme
4^. This i» true of Mr. Booth. 1 am to prove
in the next place, i j i u»
II Thi^t this promife muft comprehend adults
and infants ivherever it comes, kt it come wherever
'' The Apofde, in applying this promife, diflin-
ruifn^'S thofe to whom it is to a])ply mto prelent and
a-ft-nt The firft clafs were his hearers ; the iecona
he defcribes two wavs— all that are afar off— as mil-
n V as the Lord our God ihall call. To each of the e
ciafies, vl'Z. thofe who were prefent, and thofe ^^;ho
were a!)fent, he applies the promife m aie text. 1 o
thofe who were prefent, the promife is to you ana
to your children :-to thofe afar off, and the promiie
is to you and to ^our children ;-to as many as the
Lord our God ihall call, the promife is to you and
to your children. Let the promife come to what
70 ARGUMENTS OM THE SIDE
perfons facvcr it may, it mull come to them and to
their children ; becaufe the promife mud be the iame
wherever God (hall fend it. I have aheady proved
that the words [you and children] mean adults and
infants ; and both being in the promife, it mail there-
fore belong to each ; To you adults and to your in-
fants, who are prefcnt ; to you aduUs, who are afar
off, and to your infants ; to as many adults as the
Lord our God fhall call, and their infants. That
this is true may be proved by conlidering the efifence
or nature of the promife.
There ar4*tv/o things which enter into the effence
of a promife : It mail contain fome good — it muft
be mad€to fome perfon or perfons. Thit thefe two
belong to the effence of a promife appears by this,
that if eitht^ be taken away, there can be no pro-
mife — e. g. I will be a God to thee and to thy feed ;
the good in tffis promife is God hi mfelf— the perfons
were Abraham and his feed. If the good be taken
away, it will then be no promife j I will — to thee
and -to thy feed. The cafe will be the fame if ihe
perfons are taken away ; I will b^ a God — in either
cafe it is no promife. So when a promife is made
to different perfons, one perfon is as cfLntial to the
promife as the other — e. g, I will be a God unto
thee and to thy feed ; the promife is as much to the
feed as to Abraham, and as much to Abraham as to
the feed ; becaufe both are eiTcntial to the promiTe.
Now the apoflle, expreffing the effence or nature
ftf the promife in the text, as it refpe(5ls the obje6ls,
fays, " The promife is to you and to your children."
Both parts, therefore, belong to the promife ; it is
elTential to the promife that it be — lo you ;— it is
like wife effcntial to it that it be to your children.
And the cafe being fo, we cannot take away either
p:irt without violating the effence of the promife.
We have no more right to fay, The promife is to
you, but not to your children, than the promife is to
your children, but not to you ; for as it was the de-
fign of God that the promifa fliould be to both, it
or INFANT BAPTISM. Tl
war, his defign that it {houlci be to their children as
truly as to themlelves. And fo the promife mull
he to Petf r's hearers and their children — to all that.^
are afar ofF^ and to their children — to as many as the
Lord our God Oiall caH, and to their children ; and
the reafon is, both enter into the effence of the pro-
mife. So whtm God faid, " I will be a God unto
thee and to thy feed," it would apply, in the fame
form, '* to thee and id thy feed," to every man and
every g;eneration of men of the offspring of Abra-
ham, as long as the promife was in force.
Mr. Booth obje6ls to this, in vol. ii.*p. 355, and
fays, " Thefe words [as many as the Lord aur God
ihall call] are, as plainly as poiTible, a limiting claufc
and extend a reftritlive lorce to the term, children,
as much as to the pronoun, you or to diat defcriptive
language, all that are afar off."' To this I reply, that
the apoltle himfelf did not make ufe of that limit
which Mr. B. fays is fo plain ; for the apoflle a6^ually
fpoke to thofe who, in Mr. B's fenfe, were already
awakened and called ; and then, as plainly as poffible,
diftinguilhes between them and their children. New
if the apoftle addrefied thofe who were already cal-
led, and extended the promife beyond them, even to
their children, then the pron^^fe was not limited to
the called. But this the apoftle a6luidly did, as
plainly as words could exprefs it ; for he fpoke to
thofe who were pricked in their heart, and faid,
" Men and brethern, whatfViall we do ?" 1 o thefe he
faid, *' The promife is unto you" — and, inftead of
confining it to them only, he extends it to their chil-
dren alfo ; and fo paffes over that limit which Mr. B.
is pleafed to lay down. And as the apoille extends
the promife beyond the called, in the firft claufe, we
muft follow his example, and extend it be} ond the
called in the lad claule — i hus the promife is to as
many as th- Lord our G«d ihall call, and to their
children: And then ]\)r. B's limiting claufe will be
nothing more than a very lame evafion.
72 ARtJUMENTS ON THE SIDE
Notwithftanding this, there is fome truth in Mr.
B's. idea refpedlirg the limiting claufe, though he
himfelf, by mifappHcation, has done violence to that
truth. That claufe, "to as many as the Lord our
God fliall call," is really a limiting claufe, but not in
that way Mr. B. fuppofes. This, like every other
promife, has two limits, and thefe two are fixed bv
two limiting claufes : One limit determines how wide
the promife lliall extend; the other how far it is to
run — the one is a limit of latitude, the other of lorigi-
tude. The limit of latitude, extends to parents and
children — that of longitude reaches down "to as ma-
ny as the Lord our God fliall call." And as there is a
perfedl harmony between thefe two, there is no need
to deftroy the one in order to preferve the other; for
both limits being fettled and fixed, that of latitude,
v/hich extends to parents and children, muft continue
firm, till, through fucceiTive ages, it come« down to
that of longitude, which reaches to as nriany as the
Lord our God lliall call ; that is, as long as God ihall
continue to call, the promife fhall pertain to parents
and children.
Mr. B. therefore, was very right in making this
a limiting claufe, for fo it really is ; but he was ve-
ry wrong when, in^lead of preferving both, he fet
one limit to deflroy the other. And as it often
falls out that thofe, who do violence to the fpirit of
a text, are led to utter fome rafli expreiTion againfl
the letter of it, juft fo it has fallen out in Mr. B.'s
cafe. He has violated one limit in the text, and
has fo exprelfed himfelf as to exceed all limits of
truth. In voL ii. p. 3 54, he has faid, " There is
nothing faid about the promife refpecting any be-
fides thofe who were then awakened." Thofe
who were awakened, are diflinguiflied by the pro-
noun "you;" and it is certain fomething is faid
bout the promiie refpecting them. But, fays Mr. B.
** There is nothing faid about the promife refpect-
ing any befides." Mr. B. fhould not have faid this
with the text before his eyes. He fhould firil have
O? INFANT BAPTISM. ■ TS
erafed that claufe of it, " and to your children,"
and not have let it ftand to Hare him in the face,
and convict him of falfehood. As fomething was
faid about the promife refpecting thofe who were
awakened, and their children both, he might as well
have denied it refpecting the awakened, as to denjr
it refpecting their children : But it is often the fate
of thofe who oppofe truth, to lofe truth and modef-
ty together.
When any difpute happens on a place of Scrip-
ture, and it cannot be fettled from the context, the
bed way is to pafs to a fimilar place, and obferve
(if there be any plain indications) in what manner
that was underftood, and v^hat practice took place
upon it. That paflfage, to whioh the text bears the
fh'ongefl refemblance, is Genefis xvii. 7. *' I will
eftcibiifh my covenant — to be a -God unto thee and
to thy feed. I'hcre is no place in Scripture fo like
the text as this ; they are both worded in the fame
v/ay — '■^'- to thee and to thy feed" — to you and to
your children. They are both connected with a
reli^-JQUs ordinance. By feedv which is the fame as
children, was m/eant an infant of eight days old and
upwards ; and becaufe a promife is made to the
feed, an infant becomes the fubject of a religious
o-rdinance. Nov/, if the language of the text be
fimilar, and if it be conne6lt'd with a religious
ordinance, as that was, what better comment" can
be made upon it, than what that paffage fuggefts ?
Why (houkl not the ideas be alike, if the language
and circv.mftances be fo ? The reafon whv a compa-
ring of Scripture with Scripture aHHls the under-
ftanding, is this : When God ufes the fame kind of
language in tv/o places of Scripture, and the cir-
cumltances are alike^ it is plain he meims to be un-
ilood as intending "fimilar things. "This is fo fure a
rule of interpretation, then we are not afraid of
venturing our evcrlaftiivg interef^s upon it : and, by
adopting it in this inftancc, -thejefult \vi\\ be clv;ar-
(;
r4 ARGUMENTS ON THE SIDE
ly this : That the Holy Ghoft, by the phrafe, " you
r^nd your children," meant adults and infants j that
thefe are placed together in the fanne promife ; and
that the promife, thus made to adults and infants, is
conne6ted with baptifm. And hence it may be
proved,
III. That infants are placed in the fame relation
to baptifm, as they were of old to circumcilion.
Let any one compare the two places together, Viz.
Gen. xvii. 7, 9, 10. and this now before us, and he
will fee that parents and children are united, in
each promife, in the fame w^y — there the promife
is, '' to thee and to thy feed"— ^here it is, ^' to you
and to your children ;" — that the promife, in each
place, is connected with a religious ordinance : In
Genefis it is connected with circumcifion — in this
text v/ith baptifm ; — that, in both places, the ordi-
nance is made to refult from the promife — the one
is let down as a reafon for the other ; Gen. xvii. 9.
'^ Thou Ihalt keep my covenant therefore ;" that is^
becaufe God had given a promife. So here, " Re-
pent, and let every one of you, of your's, be bapti-
zed, for (gar^ becaufe) the promife is to you and
to your children." Infants, therefore, in this paf-
fage, are placed in the fame relation to baptifm as
they were anciently to circumcifion. This being
fo, I reafon thus :
Yv'hen a pofitive inftitute iSvConneiSled with a pro-
mife, all, who are contained in the promife, have
a right to the inflitute. I think any one may be
compelled to grant this, as it is certainly an unde-
niable truth ; for if parents muft, therefore, be cir-
cumcifed becaufe they are included in the promife,
then, as infants are alfo included in the promife,
they too mufl be circumcifed. All this is evinced
by the hillory of circumcifion, and is indeed a felf-
evident cafe ; becaufe if a promife give a right to
an inftltute, the inftitute muft belong to all who are
interelled in the promife. And, therefore, we may
OF INFANT BAPTISM. 75
reafon thus : If parents muft be baptifed becaufe
the promife belongs to them, then niuil their infants
Jbe baptifed, becaufe the promife is to them alfo.
This mode of reafoning is the more certain, as it is
confirmed, beyond all doubt, by the divine proce-
dure ; for if you afk, Who were to be circumcifed ?
the reply is, Thofe to whom the promife was made.
If you inquire again, to whom was the promife
made ? we anfwer, To adults and infants. Again,
if you afk, Who are to be baptifed ? the anfwer is,
Thofe to whom the promife is made. But to whom
is it made ? The apoftle fays, " To you and to ,
your ciiiidren." Now what proof more dire<5t can
be made or defired for infant baptifm ?
From thefe premifes the refult is plainly this :
That as infants fland, in this text, in the fame re-
lation to baptifm as they did to circamciiion, their
right to the one muPc be the fame as it was to the
other. The cafe, in both inflances, ftands fairly
thus : The promife connects itfelf with the ordi-
nance; that with circumcifion — this with baptifm.
It alfo conne6ls two parties together, infants and
parents, and unites them both to that ordinance
with which itfelf is connected. It is by virtue of
the union of the promife sYith the ordinance, that
thofe who have an intereft in the one have a right
to the other ; and when two parties, parents and
children, are intereftfid in the fame promife, and
that promife gives a right to the ordinance, it gives
the fame right to both the parties who are intereft-
ed in it. And hence, as parents and children are
interefted in the promife, the right of the children
to the ordinance is the fame as that of parents.
I produce thefe three paffages only to ihow, that
fpecial notice is taken of infants, and that they are
fpoken of agreeable to the idea of their church-
memberlhip. In Luke ix. 47, 48. our Lord pro-
pofes them for reception in his name, and thereby'
76 ARGUMENTS ON THE SIDR
owi^s them as viftbly related to himfelf. He indi-