The Infants of believing, covenanting Parents are in a sense Members of the Visible Church.

THIS is our second inference from the fact already established, that the visible church has been under both dispensations the same body. It is not disputed that infants were constituted members of the church of Israel. They were embraced in the arms of the everlasting covenant, and entitled to all the privileges of which their age was capable. If, then, the visible church is, at present, the same body with ancient Israel, the children of believing, cove nanting parents are still, in a similar sense, members of the church. No person, who admits the premises, can deny the justness of this conclusion.-The truth it embraces is capable of being established by a variety of considerations.

1. Children are still connected in covenant with their covenanting parents. It is undeniable, that the covenant formerly embraced not only parents, but their children. Its requirements respected them. Its promises reached them. Abraham must circumcise his children as well as himself. He must "command his children and his household after him," as well as pursue himself the path of duty. And, on the other hand, God promised to be their God as well as his. This covenant connexion of children with their parents is recognized in every part of the Old Testament. A multitude of passages to this purpose might easily be adduced.*-But whatever covenant connexion children formerly enjoyed, the children of believing parents enjoy still. We have proved that the covenant with Abraham is still in force; the covenant of the church has ever been the same. If the Jewish parent was bound in cove: nant to bring up his children for God, the Christian parent is under similar bonds. If the Jewish parent could plead a promise for his offspring, the Christian parent can plead the same. "The promise is to you and to your children." (Acts ii. 39.) This covenant connexion of children with

*See particularly Deut. vii. 9, xxx. 6, and xxxi. 12, 13; Ps. xxxvii. 26, lxxviii. 5-7, ciii. 17, 18, cxii. 1, 2; Prov. xx. 7, xxii. 6, xxiii. 13, 14, xxix. 17; 1. xliy, 3, 4, lix. 21, lxv. 23'; Jer. xxxii. 39; Mal. iv. 6, &c.

their parents fully establishes a connexion between such children and the church.

2. It is evident from prophecy, that children must, under the present dispensation, be connected with the visible church. It is predicted that at a certain period, probably near the Millennium, "nations shall be born" to the church; "nations shall flow to it ;" "the kingdoms of this world shall become the kingdoms of Christ," &c.* Was there ever a nation or kingdom which contained no children? Manifestly these predictions can never be in their full extent accomplished, if children have no connexion with the church of Christ.-Jeremiah, speaking with an ultimate reference to the restoration of Israel "in the latter days," says, "their children shall be as aforetime." (Jer. xxx. 20, 24.) The children of these converted Jews, whose churchstanding will undoubtedly be similar to that of converted Gentiles, must then "be, as aforetime," members of the visible church.

3. That the children of covenanting parents are still in a sense members of the visible church, is also evident from declarations in the New Testament.-Some of our Saviour's friends, on a certain time, "brought unto him infants, that he would touch them. And when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of God." (Luke xviii. 15, 16.) It cannot be denied that these were literally little children. They are expressly called infants; they were brought unto Christ in their parents' arms, and they were taken up in his arms and blessed. But "of such is the kingdom of God." What does the phrase, "kingdom of God," denote? Does it denote the kingdom of future glory? If little children belong to this kingdom, they belong to Christ, and ought to be members of his church on earth. Or does it denote, according to its most usual signification in the four evangelists, the visible church? In this sense, it is explicitly in our favour, and needs no comment. "Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is my visible church."-In order to evade this argument, Mr. J. contends that the phraseology will admit of another construction. "Of such is the kingdom of God"-not, says he, "of such in age or

*Is, Ixvi. 8, ii. 2; Rev. xi. 15. † Compare Matth. xix. 13, and Mark x. 16,

size; but of such in the moral temper of heart; in humili, ty and docility of disposition." (P. 30,)-Suppose we admit this interpretation. Little children, then, have a "disposition," a "moral temper of heart," which fits them for heaven, and without which none can be fitted for heaven. Will it not follow that they are fit for the church of God on earth? Is the church below holier than the church above?—This interpretation, however, is not admitted. It fixes the utmost absurdity on our Saviour's conduct. "Why should he be very angry with his disciples for forbidding infants in years to be brought to him," because an humble disposition was necessary in grown persons, to fit them for his kingdom? In short, this interpretation is forced and fanciful in the extreme, and probably never would have recurred, had it not been needed to support a favourite hypothesis.*

Our Saviour, at another time, having taken a little child in his arms, said to his disciples-"Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me." (Mark ix. 37.) What are we to understand by receiving a little child in Christ's name? Let our Saviour be his own interpreter. Within three or four verses, he says again" Whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink, in my name, because ye belong to Christ," &c. (V. 41.) To receive a little child in Christ's name, is, therefore, tor receive it, because it belongs to Christ. Is not the membership of little children, in this passage, incontestably established?

The apostle Paul wrote to his Corinthian brethren as follows: "The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.", (1 Cor. vii, 14.)-It is obvious to remark, that if children are holy when only one parent is a believer, they must certainly be holy when both parents are believers. Hence all the children of believing parents in Corinth, and indeed all the children of such parents throughout the earth, are, by divine authority, here pronounced holy. But in what sense? The term holy is used in only two senses in the sacred writings. It always expresses either an internal or

*Dr. GALE, a distinguished Baptist, honestly concedes, that the phrase, "of such," refers to infanta in years, (Reflections on WALL, p. 421.)

external, a real or a relative holiness. It is not pretended that the children of believers are really and internally holy." The holiness ascribed to them is therefore a visible or relative holiness. They are called holy, because of their pe culiar appropriation to God. They are called holy, because of their connexion with the visible church. But Mr. J. objects, that the same holiness which belongs to the child, is ascribed to the unbelieving parent. He "is sanctified" by the believer. (P. 31.)-Is this the case? The word holy is an adjective-a part of speech which characterizes. The passive verb, "is sanctified," is entirely different. This, to be sure, expresses an effect; but it may not extend to character. One or two examples will make the idea familiar. We often pray that afflictions might be sanctified. The intention is not that they should be made holy afflictions. Every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer." (1 Tim. iv. 4, 5.) Every creature of God does not in this way become a holy creature. Neither does the unbelieving parent become a holy parent, in any legitimate acceptation of the term, by being united in matrimony with one who believes. He is sanctified by or (i) to the believer, as every creature is sanctified by the word of God and prayer: but the whole discourse of the apostle proceeds on the supposition, that he still is both really and visibly unholy.

What is Mr. JUDSON's interpretation of this passage? He supposes the apostle to conclude, from the acknowl edged fact that their children were not unclean, but holy, that the unbeliever was so sanctified to the believer, that their "cohabitation was lawful marriage." (P. 31.)-In respect to what, was the lawfulness of their marriage ever questioned? Not, surely, in respect to the civil laws of Corinth. The believer never supposed he violated these laws, by continuing his connexion with the unbeliever." The question, then, must have respected the laws of God. The Corinthian brethren knew, that God's ancient covenant people had been forbidden not only to be joined with strangers, but to continue such connexions after they were formed. (Ezra x. 3.) They knew, also, that the offspring of these illicit connexions had been considered unclean, out of covenant, and as not belonging to "the holy seed."

(Ezra ix. 2.) Let it be granted, then, if Mr. J. wishes it, that the Corinthian believers, who were married to unbelievers, called in question the legality of continuing such connexions; and that the apostle, for their satisfaction, referred them to the well-known fact, that their children had not been rejected as unclean, and out of covenant, but had been publickly recognized as branches of the holy seed.If this interpretation is at all different from ours, it certainly is not less favourable to our cause. In either case, the membership of infants is clearly established.*

4. The epithets and phrases applied in scripture to the children of covenanting parents, clearly evince their membership with the visible church. They are spoken of generally in the same terms with their parents. Are covenanting parents styled believers; so are their children. (Matth. xviii. 6.) Are they called disciples; so are their children. (Matth. x. 42.) Are they called the children of God; so are their children. (Ez. xvi. 21.) Are they members of the kingdom of God; so are their children. (Mark x. 15.) Are they called holy; so are their children. (1 Cor. vii. 14.) Are they called saints; so are their children. In short, if it can be proved from the terms and phrases used in relation to believing parents, that they are members of the church of Christ, it can be proved with equal clearness that their children are members with them.

5. There is evidence from fucts recorded in the New Testament, that the children of believing parents are in a sense members of the church. In the first days of the new dispensation, believers were a body by themselves, were called the church, and their property was vested in a common stock. Were not children associated with their parents? Would the Christian parent vest all his property in the common stock, and cast his infant children on the mercy of the world? The idea is revolting. It is beyond all controversy, that in these early days children were associated and connected with the visible church of Christ.

Another fact which deserves notice is, that the Jewish converts continued, for many years, to circumcise their *See POOLE, HENRY, GUISE, DODDRIDGE, and SCOTT, on this disputed passage; also, AUSTIN'S View of the Church, pp. 231-236.

澤

Compare Eph. i. 1, with vi. 1. See LATHROr's Discourses on Bap. p. 58.