We next adduce what our Lord says, Mark x, 13-16; Luke xviii, 15; Matt. xix, 13: "Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of God." With this passage Mr. B. seems somewhat perplexed, for he endeavours to make it appear that those children might have been capable of believing. Sermon, p. 13, and Strict., p. 8, he says, "I am led to doubt exceedingly whether the children brought to Jesus were unconscious babes, or whether there ever were any unconscious infants brought to Jesus." Now I suppose, if they had been capable of "believing," as Mr. B. supposes, then neither the disciples nor even a Baptist preacher would have rebuked those that brought them, or have "forbidden the children;" as believers are not only capable of being blessed," but have a right to baptism, according to our opponents. Luke says they were "infants." I presume their infants were about as "unconscious" as our infants. How ridicu lous it is to see a man come with "Schrevelius's Lexicon," or any other Lexicon, in his hand, to tell, or prove to plain people, that although Mark says they were young children," and Jesus calls them "little children," and Matthew calls them "little children," and Luke says they were infants," and they all say "they were brought" to Jesus, and " he took them up in his arms," and put his hands on them, yet there never were any unconscious infants brought to Jesus!"

66

66

66

66

In his Strictures, Mr. B. has tried one mode of evading this case; and in his sermon, another

mode, both equally absurd, and going alike to show how very obnoxious the case of those children is to the Baptist cause.

The phrase "kingdom of God," and "kingdom of heaven," used by the evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, I hold to mean, generally, the church under the gospel dispensation: "The kingdom which (Daniel said) the God of heaven was to set up at the end of the seventy weeks," represented in the vision by the "little stone taken out of the mountain without hands," Dan. ii, 44, 45. I am not only supported in this view by critics generally, but also by that famous Baptist preacher, Robert Hall. His words are- "The kingdom of God, a phrase which is constantly employed in Scripture to denote that state of things which is placed under the avowed administration of the Messiah."-Hall's Works, vol. i, p. 372. Now Christ says, "Of such ('infants,' 'little children') is the kingdom of God," and says to the adults who were present, "Verily I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein." It is worthy of remark, that while the disciples forbid the children, and rebuked those that brought them, the Master " was much displeased" with those knowing adults, and took the infants in his bosom, and gave them his blessing. A Baptist may ask, "How could an infant be blessed?" they are 66 unconscious," "why should infants be forced without their choice" to Christ, and have his blessing

put upon them" without their consent?" "They might choose to reject Christ when they become adults." These, and a thousand other questions might be asked. But the how and the why is not the matter to be settled by us; here are the facts, "he took them in his arms,' ""he blessed them;" he said, "Of such is the kingdom of God." It is very doubtful with me whether Mr. B.'s "extreme doubts" on the subject, even with the use of his "Lexicon," will invalidate, in the minds of my readers, the force of these facts. It is hard to reason against facts.

But suppose, for argument sake, that the "kingdom of God" means the kingdom of glory, our opponents gain nothing by it; then the children are fit for heaven, and, I suppose, are fit for the church on earth. What Mr. B. says in his Strictures about angels being unfit for a place in the gospel church is altogether gratuitous; where is it written? He admits, Strict., p. 8, that "the blood of Jesus may be applied to children," fitting them for heaven and still he says, 66 they are fitted by an influence that never fits men for the gospel kingdom." This seems like very strange doctrine. I suppose 7 Mr. B. holds the doctrine of original sin, in opposition to Pelagius; if so, infants need an application of the blood of Christ, to purify, or make them holy; then the question occurs, How is this blood applied? The Scriptures attribute the work uniformly to the Holy Spirit: hence the angel said, Luke i, 15, of John the Baptist, that he shall be filled with the Holy

Now,

Ghost, even from his mother's womb." candid reader, do you know of any other way to fit men for the gospel church, or the kingdom of glory, than by an application of "the blood of Jesus, through the eternal Spirit ?" We read of but one song among the redeemed in heaven; they all were redeemed by the blood of Jesus, and all sing one song.

Infants, who are in a state of justification, Rom. v, 18, consequently not guilty, having never committed actual or personal transgression, are made the model for adults: " Except ye be converted, and become as little children;" "whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God, as a little child," &c. Yet our Baptist friends admit the adults, who are formed on the model, and reject the children, who are the model by which the qualifications of the adult are set forth. Strange! passing strange!

We shall be told, however, "they were not baptized, but blessed;" where is the proof? 66 They were to be received in the name of Christ." 66 They were not to be forbidden to come to him." The Baptists say, all were to come to him in his church by baptism. I therefore infer they were baptized, and I have just as much evidence of the baptism of those children as any Baptist can find in the New Testament of the baptism of St. Peter and St. John; for I have never seen any evidence that Christ ever applied water to them but once, and then he only washed their feet. An objector will say, But we infer they were baptized. Very

good. You will allow me the same liberty. I infer those children were baptized, for surely they obtained some grace, when it is said, "he blessed them." This is more than can be said with truth of many an adult church member. See Watson's Exp. on Matt. xix, 13, 14.

66

The Epistles were written to the churches, and were to be read in the churches; and children-young children-are addressed, and appropriate instruction given them, equally with fathers, wives, servants, &c. We shall be told they were not "unconscious babes." They were so young that they were yet to be brought up," and were not to be "provoked" by their parents, lest they should be "discouraged." They had been "baptized into Christ;"-into his kingdom as subjects,-into his school as scholars, or disciples, and were to “obey their parents in the Lord in all things," and to be "brought up in the instruction and discipline of the Lord." Surely such were not adult believers. When was a Baptist church seen that had persons in it that needed bringing up?

There is no precedent in Scripture with regard to the particular age at which the ordinance ought to be given, except one. That is the case of Jesus, "who began to be about thirty years

of age." We suppose 66 our friends," who talk

so much of " following Jesus down to Jordan,” and "fulfilling all righteousness," would hardly recommend all persons to defer baptism until the age of thirty-although this is a part of Christ's example. More of this hereafter.