The day light of truth from Heaven's own book now dawns upon us. Let us walk in this light, guided by the old landmarks of the apostles and martyrs.

CHAPTER XXV.

THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED.

THE principles, arguments, and passages from the Scriptures, as laid down in the last two chapters, we consider quite satisfactory on infant membership, yea, unanswerable: still we shall proceed to array some confirmatory proof in this, which will be found arresting, interesting, and irresistible, when viewed in connection with what is before us on this point, and as founded thereon.

Genesis xvii, 7: "I will establish my covenantto be a God unto thee, and to thy seed." Acts ii, 39: "For the promise is unto you, and to your children." These promises, be it remembered, are connected with religious ordinances, the former to circumcision, and the latter to baptism; and in consequence of which infants are placed in the same relation now to baptism that they were anciently to circumcision. In the first text we recognize the right of infant membership, and in the second a continuance of it. Here we pause to ask, was there any repeal, after the day of Pentecost, of this right? We most confidently answer, no! Here, then, we perceive an infallible confirmation of what we said in our first rule of judging, Chapter XXIII., that a law once in force must so remain until repealed or abrogated.

Infant membership, in view of this aspect of the case, is as clearly taught in the passage from Acts as in the one from Genesis.

*

M

But the Anti-Pedobaptist meets us here with a Greek Lexicon open in his hand, and informs ust that tekna, the word from which children is translated, means posterity; and then adds this much of his own, "adult posterity," which he follows up by gravely asserting that the true meaning of Peter runs thus: "For the promise is to you, and to your adult posterity." Surely a desperate cause requires a desperate argument, and here we have a glance at both. Tekna, as used by Peter, simply means infant posterity in a direct sense; for, when we speak of our posterity, do we not mean children or infants? Certainly. The word tekna comes from the verb tikto, which signifies to bring forth, and leads us at once to think of offspring. Sperma, the word from which seed is translated, in the passage from Genesis, is synonymous with tekna; hence seed and children mean the same thing.

Tekna and sperma must alike be abandoned by every Anti-Pedobaptist. They cannot even remotely assist his cause. Ours, of a truth, has their only support.

Have we not often been told, if the word children stood allied with the baptismal accounts of the New Testament, that there would never have been any opposition to their baptism? How sad a mistake! Have we not children spoken of in connection with the baptism of adults by Peter? Does this fact quiet the feelings of the Anti-Pedobaptist, in any sense or form? Nay, he roundly asserts again and again, that the term children means adult posterity." Paul emphatically teaches us that children were in the church, being in the Lord. Does this appear plain enough for the demands of immersionists, or more strictly AntiPedobaptists? No. Ripley would inform us that the individuals spoken of by Paul, or by Peter, by the use of the term children, "might have been

66

either twenty days, twenty months, or twenty years old." (See his work, p. 230.) In view of this fact, what purpose would it have served, if the term children had been employed in every place where baptism is named? It would only have opened a field for the Anti-Pedobaptist to say, and to contend, that the uniform meaning of tekna, as used in the New Testament, "is neither more nor less than adult posterity." Again, are our readers apprised that the same position is taken where the term children occurs in the writings of the fathers? The moment the Anti-Pedobaptist approaches the word children in the works of the fathers, he begins to preach about "adult posterity." Then let Pedobaptists be persuaded of this fact, that if the apostles had introduced the term children at every point they baptized, and used it as Peter or Paul did, this would not have silenced the opposition to infant baptism. Our reasons for this belief are now before the reader, and we persuade our mind that he will perceive that the reasons as well as the belief are well founded.

The preceding reflections, texts, and terms, shed additional light on our subject, and broadly expose the weakness of its opposers.

The Anti-Pedobaptist, not content with his exposition of tekna, gives us to understand: "A person who has a right to a positive institute must be expressly mentioned as having that right; but infants are not so mentioned, therefore they have not this right." This looks very well on paper, but let us see how it will work. Is not the sacrament of the Lord's supper a positive institute? Is a woman expressly mentioned as having a right thereto ? She is not. There is no such passage in the Scriptures. Now, the zeal of the Anti-Pedobaptist, in this instance, as in the preceding one, carries him too far; for in laboring to exclude infants from

baptism, he excludes woman from the Lord's table, there being no command for her to partake equal to his requirement. His inference, however, cannot exclude infants; inasmuch as we have proved that their right to membership was not taken from them by the writers of the New Testament; that they were left to enjoy it throughout all generations. But alas for woman! for she is certainly, by the quotation, excluded from the Lord's supper, not being expressly mentioned. If she is expressly mentioned, let the passage be produced. But we shall here repeat, that there is no such passage. Why then ask, consistency being respected, for a direct command in the New Testament for the baptism of infants, when no command of the kind can be given for female communion? This is a fearful quibble, ruinous to the very cause that opposes ours.

Now, let us follow out the legitimate result of the point here at issue: "A person who has a right to a positive institute must be expressly mentioned as having this right; but women are not so mentioned, therefore they have not this right."

Let this point be but pressed on the Anti-Pedobaptist, and he will soon cease to ask for an express law on infant membership in the New Testament, when he cannot produce such a law in the case of female communion. It is understood, however, from clear intimations in the New Testament, that women have a right to communion; and it is as clearly understood from portions of the same book, if not much more clearly, that infants have a right to baptism. This is all we contend for, so far as the New Testament is concerned, inasmuch as we proved, in Chapter XXIV, that it would be out of place to look for a law on infant membership in the New Testament, that this was given in the Old, and never repealed. The inves

tigation of this feature of the case has tended greatly to add force to our expressed persuasions, and to incite in us fresh zeal to expose the uningenius quibbles of Anti-Pedobaptists. Wonder if they should not next turn in to prove that it was an error of the church to allow of female communion? To be consistent they ought. They would have more reason on their side in the latter case, than in the former.

But let us proceed. No man can determine from the word circumcision all pertaining thereto. The circumstances narrated fix the true understanding of the matter, though it embraced a positive institute.

No man can determine from the word baptize all pertaining thereto, as it regards subjects, or otherwise. The circumstances, usages, laws, and accounts, recorded in the Scriptures, must fix the true understanding of the case, though it reveals a positive institute.

No man can determine from the Lord's supper all pertaining thereto, as it regards qualification and subjects. The plain details that are allied to it, and the circumstances that surround it, must fix. the true understanding of the question, though it embodies a positive institute.

Is there an express law for keeping the first day of the week instead of the seventh? There is not; still we keep it.

Now, as we determine the true sense in all these instances, so we determine on infant membership. The manner is justly laid down in these chapters.

In this connection we shall mention a sentiment of inspiration for the sake of an illustration by it, a sentiment that runs thus: "He that will not work should not eat." This, of course, does not apply to infants, but to adults. Apply it to infants, and death will be the result. In like manner are