ence of these false preconceptions makes him studions, as it were, to avoid whatever might encourage them, and to embrace every opportunity of exposing and warning against them. This is what might have been expected.— And I have only to request the candid reader, to consider the marked difference between the two cases; and to put the question to his own mind, whether, if the continuance of the pre-existing connection between children and parents had been inconsistent with the spirituality of his kingdom, he, who showed himself so jealous of that spirituality, and set himself so decidedly against the carnal views and expectations of his deluded country men, would not have acted, in regard to it, upon the same principle, and have avoided whatever was fitted to countenance and confirm erroneous preconceptions?

V. Having taken this general view of the passages, let me now in the fifth place, request the reader's attention to two or three of them separately.

Acts ii. 38, 39. "Then Peter said, 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 to you, and to your children, and to ali that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call,"

When

These words were addressed by a Jew to fellow Jews. How would such an audience understand them? they heard of a promise to them and to their children, could their minds fail, on such an occasion, to go back to the promise of the covenant made with their fathers, and declared to be to them and to their seed after them? And in that case, there was but one sense in which the hearers of Peter could understand the designation "your children." Yet it is on the ground of the promise made to them and to their children, that the apostle founds his assurance of "the gift of the Holy Ghost:" and this gift another apostle (Paul) denominates "the blessing of Abraham," or declares it at least to be included in that blessing. Gal. iii. 14.—Recollect, then, that the minds of Peter's auditors were habituated to the idea of the connection of their children with themselves in the promise of the covenant. The idea was deeply and familiarly set

tled in their minds and hearts. It is unreasonable, then, to say, that they must have understood Peter's words,the words of Divine promise to themselves and to their children-addressed to them by an inspired prophet,in a sense consistent with that which they were accustomed to affix to similar modes of expression, when used of old to their fathers,-and consistent with all their previous habits of thought? And if they did so understand them, they must have conceived of them as assuming, and intimating, the continuance of the same connection.Are we then to suppose, that this " holy man of God, speaking as he was moved by the Holy Ghost," would, without explanation or restriction, at the very "beginning of the gospel," in his first address to his countrymen, when a right impression was of so much consequenceemploy expressions, that were fitted to convey to their minds a false and worldly view of the nature of the Messiah's kingdom?

Mark x. 13-16. "And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them; and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. 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 kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them."

It

"The kingdom of heaven" is the New Testament church, the spiritual kingdom of Christ, begun on earth, and perfected in heaven,-the gospel dispensation, including both its state in this world, and its state in the world to come. This comprehensive view of the designation readily accounts for its being sometimes applied to the church below, and at other times to heaven itself. is the same kingdom, in the two great stages of its progress. Of this kingdom, young children (Bosqot, infants) are here most explicitly declared to be subjects-partakers of its privileges and blessings. If (as some allege) the phrase "of such" means of persons possessing the dis positions of children, it means this, beyond all question,

1

inclusively of the children themselves. If not, the reasons for receiving them would have been as applicable to lambs, or doves, as to children :-besides, that the words which follow ascertain their being included,-" Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, (i. e. surely as a little child receives it,) he shall in no case enter therein."-The Sovereign of this kingdom, then, distinctly recognises little children amongst his subjects; and he is " much displeased" with those who would have prevented their being brought to him for his blessing. Recollect, then, reader, the previous state of things; and let me ask you, is this at all like the language of exclusion? Is it not, on the contrary, language, which teaches us, that such little children are capable of possessing the blessings of his kingdom, and that a large proportion of those who shall glorify and enjoy him in heaven consists of such ?-Am I then to believe, that whilst Jesus makes this interesting declaration, pronouncing them objects of his tender love, subjects of his spiritual kingdom, and partakers of its blessings, he, at the same time, cuts off all such from any external sign of connection with the kingdom he was establishing ?—that he declares them partakers of the blessings of the promise, and yet forbids the outward token of such participation to be any longer adininistered to them?—that he receives them, with the melting eye of benignity and kindness, and acknowledges their intimate connection with him, and yet excludes them from every external indication of such connection, leaving them no mark or token of the love he so emphatically expresses for them?—I must have proof of this, more explicit and satisfactory than any I have yet seen, before I can believe it. The words of Christ appear to me very plainly to warrant the inference, or even to involve a declaration, that, as the great promise of the covenant made with the fathers was now receiving its accomplishment, it was still to include, according to its original constitution, the people of God and their seed. The persons by whom these children were brought to Jesus, professed, in the very act of bringing them, their faith in him, and the value they set on his blessing,

If it shall be objected, that salvation is not confined to the seed of believers,-I gladly admit the fact. I delight in the conviction of the salvation of all that die in infancy, though it would be foreign to my purpose to enlarge here on the grounds of this conviction. Let one observation suffice. I see God actually taking of the offspring of ungodly men, and calling them by his grace, in their adult years; and, resting on this matter of fact, I can see nothing to hinder his taking also, as the objects of his sovereign mercy, such of their offspring as die in infancy. I am not, however, to forget, that God's sovereign dealing in the case of others, is not to be considered as interferring with his special promises to his people; and that the administration of ordinances must run in the line of the Divine promise and prescription. We have no title, whatever God's sovereignty may do, to go beyond or out of the course of these. The appropriation of the promise and seal of the covenant to the line of descent from Abraham by Isaac, was not such as to preclude the gracious admission of proselytes from among the Gentiles.*

*The following contrast between the baptist and pædobaptist systems, in regard to the state and prospects of dying infants, is from the Strictures of Mr. Birt, on Mr. H. F. Burder's Sermon. It evinces a degree of unfairness towards many at least of his pædobaptist brethren, which I should not have expected from such a quarter. Surely Mr. B. knew, or ought to have known, that many of them held the same sentiments with himself as to the salvation of all who die in infancy, and were sensible of no inconsistency between these sentiments and their principles and practice as pædobaptists. He should, therefore, have been ashamed to write in terms so unqualified as the following, however strongly he might be tempted to hold up to execration the narrow-minded exclusiveness of the system of his opponents:"The baptists, with grateful confidence, esteem all children who die in infancy to be equally and certainly saved, without any distinction; whilst pædobaptism, with a furtiil, gloomy, and awful aspect, makes a privileged order among dying babes-placing a comparatively small number in a state of regeneration, and a very few others in the covenant of grace; leaving the vast and incalculable majority destitute of those blessings, which are essentially necessary to their future and e'ernal felicity. Who that impartially considers this subject, can avoid being thankful, that the Bibl e does not lead him to so awful a conclusion, and that he is not by divine authority connected with a practice, the implications of which are so truly appalling?"-I unite, with my whole heart, in the thankfulness thus fervently expressed, that "the Bible does not lead me to so awful a conclusion."But it is not the man who has impartially, it is the man who has very partially indeed, considered the subject, that can represent pædobaptism as involving any such appalling implications.

**As the subject of this note is one of very deep interest, I shall be excused for referring the reader, for some additional observations respecting

Luke xix. 9.

vation come to

"Jesus said unto him, This day is salthis house, for-so-much as he also is "When she was "Be

a son of Abraham :"-Acts xvi. 15. baptized, and her household:"-Acts xvi. 31, 33. lieve in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house"-"He was baptized, he and all his, straightway"-1 Cor. i. 16. "I baptized also the household of Stephanas."

These passages relating to families, I take of course together. The general argument from them, arising from the continuance of a phraseology corresponding to the previous state of things, I have considered under the preceding particular. As to that view of the argument, I feel no anxiety about the question, whether there were infant children in those families or not. As the passages, however, have been the occasion of no small controversy, a few additional observations are indispensable.

In the first place, then, there is one point of fact undeniably clear, namely, that the apostles baptized households, or families. As to this there can be no question.-It should be noticed, too, that a man's house (oxos) most properly means his children, his offspring, his descendants, and is generally used to denote these even exclusively. I refer the reader to the following instances, which he may consult. Ruth iv. 12. 1 Kings xiv. 10— 14. xvi. 3. xxi. 22. 1 Tim. iii. 4, &c.

Secondly: To an unprejudiced reader of the New Testament, it must, I think, be equally clear, that the baptism of families is mentioned in a way that indicates its being no extraordinary occurrence, but a thing of course. This is remarkably the case as to Lydia. "The

Lord opened her heart, that she attended to the things which were spoken by Paul. "And when she was baptized and her family, she besought us, saying, If ye have

it, to my Reply to a letter by the Rev John Birt of Manchester, on some passages in this Dissertation; in the first Edition of which I had, by an inadvertency, about which a great deal more ado was made than its import ance justified. put the son for the father, having written under the impression that the Rev. John Birt of Manchester was the writer of the Strictures on Mr. Burder's Sermon, whereas the true author was the Rev. Isaiah Birt, of Birmingham. The part of my reply, which relates to the subject of the above note, willbe found in the introductory observations, to which I again request the reader's attention.