he would lay his hands on them and pray; the other, that he would bless them: probably both meant the fame thing. As the act of bringing them had no connexion with their being church members, nor any thing which Chrift did particularly applicable to them as fuch, we leave the account just as we find it ftated in the 1fcriptures, and acknowledge we know no more about it than what is there recorded.

We must beg the reader's indulgence while we just notice Mr. Edwards's argument from Acts ii. 38, 39. "Then Peter faid unto them, Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jefus Chrift, for the remiffion of fins, and ye fhall receive the gift of the Holy Ghoft. For the promife is to you and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God fhall call " From this text Mr. Edwards argues that the phrafe, " to you, and to your children, intends adults and infants."

Upon this we obferve, if the promife mentioned in this text be not limited by their retenting, or by this claufe, as many as the Lord our God fhall call, it muft be confidered as unlimited. If limited as above, then it can embrace none but fuch as are true penitents, fuch as are called of God, by an holy calling. In this way it will abfolutely exclude infants, until they are the fubjects of repentance. If taken in an unlimited fenfe, it will prove that all the children of believers thall receive remiffion of fins, and the gift of the Holy Ghost. In this it will prove too much, and fo deftroy itfelf totally Mr. Edwards here means to apply it to the promife the 17th chapter of Genefis made to Abraham and his feed. But if this be the promise intended by the apo tle, it will include all the feed of Abrahain as well as the infants of believing adults. For Mr. Edwards has before told us, that that promife was as "much to his feed as to him." Repenting, and being called of God, then, are out of the queftion! O no, not wholly fo. I faid, replies Mr. Edwards, it "intends adults and infants." By adults, Sir, I conclude you mean, that parents cannot be admitted without repentance, and being called of God; but upon their believing, their infant

offspring come into the immediate poffeffion of a right founded in the promise made in the covenant of circumcifion. This, we conclude, will be granted. It would be defirable here to know whether Mr. Edwards means to apply this promise to the children of believers indefinitely, or to infants only. The apoftle fays, to you and to your children; Mr. Edwards fays, to adults and infants. We will state a cafe, and a very probable one too, and fhould be glad of a candid answer to it: it is this. At the age of fixty, two perfons, who are the parents of a numerous family, are brought to repentance: they ap ply to Mr. Edwards to be admitted to the privileges of the Chriftian church. They have a number of children of different ages, from thirty-five, down to twentyone; but no infants. Will he addrefs them in the language of the apostle, and tell them, the promife is to you, and to your children; and on this ground admit them all to baptifm? We very much doubt it. The practice of Pædobaptifts generally tells us, they would not. But on what principle can thefe children be refufed? The promife is to you and to your children. Thefe are as much their children, as if they were infants of only eight days old. The apoftle has ufed the term children, without any limitation as to age. If the right be founded in this, that their parents are believers, then a perfon of fifty years old may claim this right for himfelf, with as much propriety as any could have challenged it for him when he was in a state of infancy.

We will fuppofe one cafe more, and one which frequently occurs it is this. The parents of a family, at he age of about forty-five, are brought to embrace the ofpel: they have children of every grade, from eight ays old, up to more than twenty years. We wish to now whether they all are to be received to memberthip on their parents' account? If not, what age dif qualifies them from coming? If they may be received on their parents' account at the age of twenty, we see nothing to forbid them at twenty-five, at thirty, at forty; yea, at any age while their parents live to fupport their claim. If the promife in the text gives any of the children of believers a right to membership without

=

repentance, or being called of God, it gives them all a right.

However abfurd these things may appear, they are but the fair legitimate confequences of Mr. Edwards's argument. There is but one way for him honourably to clear himfelf, and that is, now to prove that TEKNA means only infants of a certain age, and not children generally. This we think he will find rather difficult.

His conclufion from the paffage is, " that infants are placed in the fame relation to baptifm, as they were of old to circumcifion." (p. 71.) That rite placed uncircumcifed infants, and uncircumcifed adults all upon one footing as to right. It alfo placed Abraham's fervants upon the fame level with his natural feed.

On the whole, this argument fpun out of the promife made in the covenant of circumcifion, is one of the moft fingular that we ever attempted to trace. It poffeffès certain elaftic qualities, by which it is rendered capable of being extended or contracted, fo as to fuit the convenience of the perfon who ufes it. Viewed in its fullest extent, and it proves the right of fervants as well as children; in this it proves too much for the purposes of infant membership. Viewed in a limited fenfe, and it will fupport only the right of males; in this it proves too little, and of course makes no provifion for females. Yet upon the whole, it proves just enough to fecure the right of infants, both males and females, and no more.

Let us now for a moment review the paffage, in or, der to afcertain the plain fenfe of the apoftle.. "Then Peter faid unto them, Repent and be baptized, every one of you." That he did not mean infants is plain, from reafon, and from Mr. Edwards's own conceffion; whe fays, that "faith and repentance are never required of infants, in order to any thing." But he required repentance of the fame perfons, that he called upon to be baptized in the name of Jefus Chrift. To fay, that he called on adults to repent and be baptized, and at the fame time to bring all their impenitent children to the ordinance, appears to be a conftruction too unnatural and forced. The apoftle adds, And ye shall receive the

gift of the Holy Ghoft. If he included all the children of believers, did he engage the gift of the Holy Ghoft to them all? For, faith he, the promife is to you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God fball call. Is it not plain to every one, that the laft fentence is here defigned as a limiting claufe; and that there would be as much propriety in leaving it out in every inftance, as in one? We ought either to read it thus-The promife is to you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, and fo confider it as being univerfal; or elfe connect this limiting claufe with each fubject mentioned in the text. If the latter be true, it would be understood thus, The promife is to you, who now appear to be true penitents; it will equally embrace your children, whenever they become penitent; and alfo the Gentiles who are afar off, even as many of all as the Lord our God fhall call. fuch thing as a promise to unbelieving children can be inferred from this paffage. To fuppofe this, would be to make the apoftle act the part of a god-father, and promise that these children fhould repent, and receive remiffion of fins, and the gift of the Holy Ghoft, &c. at fome future period. We cannot believe that the apostle ever trified in this manner.

But no

Mr. Edwards attempts to get over the difficulty of this limiting claufe in this way. "As the apostle, faith he, extends the promise beyond the called in the first claufe, we muft follow his example, and extend it beyond the called in the laft claufe-Thus the promise is to as many as the Lord our God fhall call, and to their children." (p. 79.) It does not appear that the apostle did extend the promise in the firft claufe beyond the called. There is no evidence that he meant to ap ply the promise to children upon any other principle than as he applied it to parents; namely, upon their repenting and being baptized. The promife would as naturally embrace impenitent parents as impenitent children. On the whole, this paffage must be tortured, or it will not fpeak a fingle word in favour of infant baptifm. Some very fenfible and learned Pædobaptifts

have given it up, as affording no argument in favour of their fentiment.

In what an undignified light does the scheme of our opponent represent the apoftle Peter. On the memorable day of Pentecost-such a day as had never been fince time began, and probably fuch an one as will never occur again while time lafts-the Holy Ghost sent down from the afcended Saviour! Peter ftanding in the midst of three thoufand deeply diftreffed perfons who were crying out, What fhall we do? To this earnest inquiry, the holy apoftle is reprefented in this very abfurd light as telling them, "that infants are placed in the fame relation to baptifm as they were of old to circumcifion." (A fubject which they made no inquiry about, and which we prefume had not at this time come into their thoughts.) Had the apoftle been as intent upon infant baptifm as Mr. Edwards himself, we cannot fuppofe, at fuch a time and to fuch an inquiry, he would have given fuch an answer.

In the preceding animadverfions, we have in a very brief manner examined Mr. Edwards's pretended refutation of cur arguments against infant baptifm, and have endeavoured to fhow the inconclufivenefs of his reafoning. In order to render his talk more easy, he has attempted, at the very outfet, to deprive us of thofe great advantages which the fcriptures afford us in this controverfy. But these will not be relinquished. He has alfo laboured abundantly to evade the force of thefe arguments, by endeavouring to embarrass and perplex. them. But when difentangled from his fophiftical web,, they ftill appear correct and uninjured.

We have alfo confidered the two leading arguments in his prefent fyftem. In the firft, he undertakes to prove, that " God has inftituted in his church the. membership of infants, and admitted them to it by a religious rite." In his fecond argument, his object is to prove the continuance of this right of membership. From thefe taken together, he infers the right of infants to baptifm in the gospel church.

We have attempted to fhow the inconclufiveness of the first, by proving that the Jewish and Christian