sarily, suppose them comprehended therein? And whether, there was not a most strong, and most manifest necessity, if Christ intended that infants should not be included in it, that he should have expressly excepted them? The commission viewed in this, which is its proper and true light, is so far from concluding any thing against the baptising infants, that it strongly favours and supports it. For since, it is delivered in such general terms as to be capable of admitting infants; and since, from the above circumstances, the apostles would naturally and unavoidably understand it as intending their admission; it follows, that our Lord's silence, as to these, is a strong and most manifest presumption in their favour; and that his not excluding, or excepting them from the christian covenant, is, in all equitable construction, a permission or order that they should be admitted into it. ARGUMENT IV. Shall be drawn, from the EVIDENT AND CLEAR CONSEQUENCES of other passages of SCRIPTURE. I. In Roм. xi. the Apostle, discoursing of the exclusion of a chief part of the Jews from the visible church of God, and the reception of the gentiles in their stead, speaks of it under this figure, ver. 17. And if some of the branches (the Jews) be broken off, and thou (a Gentile) being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in amongst them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; boast not &c. Here let it be noted. 1. The olive tree, is the Abrahamic covenant or church; from which, the unbelieving Jews are cast out; and into which, the believing Gentiles are taken in their stead. 2. The root and fatness of this olive tree, of which the ingrafted branches partake, are the religious privileges or grants belonging to that covenant or church. Now 3. It was a very valuable and indisputable privilege of that covenant, that the faith of a parent grafted his children, together with himself into that olive tree, i. e. admitted them into the church, or into a covenant-relation to God. Therefore 4. The unbelieving Jew being cut off from this root, and the believing Gentile succeeding, and being grafted into his room, and partaking jointly with the natural branches of all their church privileges, immunities and grants, he must undoubtedly partake of this privilege too. What part of this argument can possibly be denied? Will it be said that the faith of a parent did not graft his children, together with himself, into the visible church, before the coming of Christ? No-or, that this was not a privilege? No. Can it be urged then, that believing Gentiles are not now taken in to be Συγκοινωνοι της ρίξης JointPartakers of the root*, i. e. of the church privileges and grants which the unbelieving Jew hath lost? This were highly absurd: for they are expressly declared by the Apostlet, to be Eurxanporopion fellow-heirs; Evoμ of the same body; and Evμμetonos TNS ETAYYñas joint-partakers of the pro mise. The argument, then, most clearly and strongly concludes for the visible admission of the infants of believing Gentiles, together with themselves, into the covenant and church of God. Is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also of the Gentiles? A God, in the same manner, in the same latitude and extent to us, as he was to them? Yes; he is undoubtedly, thus a God to believing * Rom. xi. 17 + EPH. iii. 6. sarily, suppose them comprehended therein? And whether, there was not a most strong, and most manifest necessity, if Christ intended that infants should not be included in it, that he should have expressly excepted them? The commission viewed in this, which is its proper and true light, is so far from concluding any thing against the baptising infants, that it strongly favours and supports it. For since, it is delivered in such general terms as to be capable of admitting infants; and since, from the above circumstances, the apostles would naturally and unavoidably understand it as intending their admission; it follows, that our Lord's silence, as to these, is a strong and most manifest presumption in their favour; and that his not excluding, or excepting them from the christian covenant, is, in all equitable construction, a permission or order that they should be admitted into it. ARGUMENT IV. Shall be drawn, from the EVIDENT AND CLEAR CONSEQUENCES of other passages of SCRIPTURE. I. In Roм. xi. the Apostle, discoursing of the exclusion of a chief part of the Jews from the visible church of God, and the reception of the gentiles in their stead, speaks of it under this figure, ver. 17. And if some of the branches (the Jews) be broken off, and thou (a Gentile) being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in amongst them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; boast not &c. Here let it be noted. 1. The olive tree, is the Abrahamic covenant or church; from which, the unbelieving Jews are cast out; and into which, the believing Gentiles are taken in their stead. 2. The root and fatness of this olive tree, of which the ingrafted branches partake, are the religious privileges or grants belonging to that covenant or church. Now 3. It was a very valuable and indisputable privilege of that covenant, that the faith of a parent grafted his children, together with himself into that olive tree, i. e. admitted them into the church, or into a covenant-relation to God. Therefore 4. The unbelieving Jew being cut off from this root, and the believing Gentile succeeding, and being grafted into his room, and partaking jointly with the natural branches of all their church privileges, immunities and grants, he must undoubtedly partake of this privilege too. What part of this argument can possibly be denied? Will it be said that the faith of a parent did not graft his children, together with himself, into the visible church, before the coming of Christ? No-or, that this was not a privilege? No. Can it be urged then, that believing Gentiles are not now taken in to be Zvykowvwvoi ans pięns JointPartakers of the root*, i. e. of the church privileges and grants which the unbelieving Jew hath lost? This were highly absurd: for they are expressly declared by the Apostlet, to be Evrxanovios fellow-heirs; Evroμa of the same body; and Euμμetoxos ang swaYYas joint-partakers of the pro mise. The argument, then, most clearly and strongly concludes for the visible admission of the infants of believing Gentiles, together with themselves, into the covenant and church of God. Is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also of the Gentiles? A God, in the same manner, in the same latitude and extent to us, as he was to them? Yes; he is undoubtedly, thus a God to believing * ROM. xi. 17: + EPH. iii. 6. Gentiles also. Accordingly Isaiah, speaking of the christian dispensation, or the state of the church under the Messiah, says, that not only believers should be esteemed the seed of the blessed of the Lord, (or the blessed seed of the Lord) but also, their offspring together with them.* II. From our Saviour's own words, MARK, X. 14. Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God. And JOHN iii. 5. Except any one (T15) is born of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. From these two passages, I say, put together, the right of infants to baptism may be also clearly inferred. For in one, they are declared actually to have a place in God's kingdom or church; and yet into this kingdom or church, the other, as expressly says, none can be admitted without being baptised. The kingdom of God, in the gospel denotes either the visible church on earth; or the invisible one in heaven. Answerable to these, there is a twofold regeneration, namely a being born again of water (1. e. baptism, which is therefore called the washing of regeneration, TIT. iii. 5.) which admits into the visible church; and a being born again of the spirit (called the renewing of the Holy Ghost,) which admits into the invisible. Now, in which soever of these senses the expression is here taken, it strongly concludes for the baptism of infants. For I. If, by the kingdom of God, be meant the visible church on earth, our Lord, by saying of such is the kingdom, declares that infants are to be considered as having a place in this kingdom, i. e. as being members of that body, society, or church, which he, as Messiah came to rule and to save. But, if they are to be considered as a part of this * ISA. lxv. 23. |