The language of the Most High, concerning families, is too plain to be misunderstood. When he foretells great accessions from the Gentiles to be made to the church under the gospel, he foretells their coming by families. Isaiah 49, 22 : They shall bring thy sons in their arms, and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders.”

46

Again: God being the God of families, family worship follows, of course, and the neglect of it is a sin so unnatural, that God says he will pour out his fury on the families that call not on his name. Jer. 10, 25.

Again: Under the figure of the feast of tabernacles, gospel privileges are foretold, Zech. 14, 17: "And it shall be that whoso will not come up, of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem, (the spiritual Jerusalem, the gospel church,) to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles, even upon that family there shall be no rain." The tabernacle was reared up in the wilderness as an emblem of gospel glory. It was an emblem of Christ, in his human nature, Heb. 8, 2—9, 2, 9, 11.

It sometimes signified the church of Christ, as Psalm 15, 1: "Lord who shall abide in thy tabernacle? Who shall dwell in thy holy hill?" As the tabernacle was an emblem of Christ in his human nature, so the feast of tabernacles was an emblem of gospel fulness, which is often called a feast, a great feast, a marriage feast, a great supper, &c. The Israelites were required to keep this feast, in remembrance of their dwelling in tents in the wilderness at the time the tabernacle was reared up. So it is expounded, Levit. 23, 43.

In the words above quoted, the prophet speaks of gospel times, and the prosperity, of the spiritual Jerusalem, the Christian church, under the figure or similitude of the feast of tabernacles. Here it is foretold that great accessions shall come from the Gentiles, to the enjoyment of gospel privileges, and to the performance of gospel duties. It was on the

eighth day of this solemnity, John 7, 37, the last day, the great day of the feast, that Jesus published his great gospel call. "Jesus stood and cried, saying, if any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink, and I will give him living wa ter." The graces and comforts of the spirit are often compared to living streams, to rivers of living water, &c. But those who come and unite with the gospel church must come by

families, and the family that will not come up, God will reckon with. On that family there shall be no rain. Every thing shall wither. Now then, when God will be known as the God of families, when he has ordained that the gospel church shall consist of families, that he will pour out his fury on the families that call not on his name, and on the family that will not come, there shall be no rain, no divine influences; it is absurd, inconsistent, impious and awful, to harbor the thought that the family is not under the strongest possible obligation to be consecrated to God.

We will now proceed to consider matters of fact. In the second chapter of Acts, we have an account of three thousand, who were baptized in one day. Peter says, 38 and 39 verses: 66 Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even to as many as the Lord our God shall call." This being the first instance of baptism, under the new dispensation, is an important case; and let us with candor, and free from prejudice, consider,

1. The words which Peter uses.

2. Their analogy to other scriptures. 3. Some attendant circumstances.

The

1. The words themselves. And certainly, they convey no idea of the exclusion of children. But certainly their plain, simple, and grammatical construction, shews that they do include children. The verb repent, metanoesate, is in the second person plural and agrees with umeis, ye. verb baptized, baptistheto, is in the third person singular and agrees with ekastos, a universal term, every one. The whole sentence is, metanoesate, kai baptistheto, ekastos umon ; both verbs are imperative, that is, commands. But it is easy for any one to see, that they are of different extension, because they are of different numbers and persons, and have different words for their nominative cases, with which they agree. This, properly speaking, is no criticism, but only giving the plain, simple, grammatical construction of the sentence, which every one who has the least acquaintance with language, must know. If Peter had designed that baptism should have been only of the same extension, with the actual repentance of adult persons, he must have continued the

same form of expression, and must have worded each member of the sentence alike. Each verb must have been in the same number and person, and must have had for its agreement, the same nominative case. But now the command to repent is limited by the pronoun ye, while the command to be baptized is more extensive, and has for its agreement, a universal term ekastos, every one. The reason for this is obvious. The little children were not, as the adults, capable of actual repentence, but were equally capable of ail the ends of baptism, as they had been of circumcision; were capable of sustaining a covenant relation with God, capable of being the subjects of his gracious promise, "I will be their God;" capable of being encircled in the arms of divine mercy, and of receiving blessing from God, and from Christ. In a word, they were such as had been in all prior dispensations, acknowledged. God himself decided their capacity and suitableness, and now not a word could be objected.

Now, supposing the same form of address had been made to a single family, consisting of parents and children; had Peter entered into an house, and after discoursing awhile, the parents were deeply affected, and being concerned for their salvation cried out, What must we do? And Peter had said "Repent and be baptized every one of you;" grammatically, Repent ye, and let every one of you be baptized. Would there be a question about the extension of the verb repent? No, truly. Would there be a question about the verb baptized? No, truly it is connected with a universal term

every one.

:

What then, is the difference, when he addresses a large number of families collected together? There can be none. If, then, children were to be baptized, this is enough. It comprehends them fully. But if they were not to be baptized, it is a form of expression which we should not expect.

Peter's commands here, are worded in the same manner as those of Moses at the institution of the passover, as they stand in the septuagint, viz: the Greek translation of the Old Testament, which, in that age, was in common use among the Jews, and with which they were more familiar than they were with the Hebrew. And one can scarcely imagine how Peter could fall into the very same mode of expression, as Moses used on that occasion, except he had his fixed on

eye

the very passage we are now about to mention. Exod. 12, 22: "And ye shall take a bunch of hyssop, and dip it in the blood that is in the basin, and strike the lintel and the two side posts with the blood that is in the basin, and none of you shall go out at the door of his house until the morning." Between the Greek and the English there is a slight variation in the manner of expression, but not in the sense. In the English, none; a negative pronoun is used; none of you shall go out; in the Greek, the negative adverb ouk is used, and the same universal term, the very word ekastos; every one shall not go out. Moses says, "Strike the lintel," &c. This extends only to the parents, and heads of families, and does not include the children. Peter says, repent; this is also an address to adults, and does not extend to infants. "The extension of a term, regards the number of individual subjects to which it may be applied."-Hedge's Logic, page 36.

Peter,

Moses says, "Every one of you shall not go out." In this requirement his phraseology is changed, from what it was before the extension is enlarged; he uses the same universal term, ekastos, which includes the whole family. The lives of the children as well as of the parents were protected, on condition that they went not out of the house. addressing his hearers, uses terms of the same extension. His command to repent is limited by the pronoun ye, extends to adults, but not to infants; but in his requirements for baptism, his phraseology is changed in the same manner as that of Moses; the extension is in the same manner enlarged, and the same universal term, ekastos, is used; and if this manner of expression did in the former case, as we know it did, include children, and designedly too, why not in the latter? If then Peter did not mean that children should be included, in the command for baptism, why is this perfect similarity of expression? Why does he use words, in number, and person, and extension, with those of Moses? Why is his phraseology changed, in the last member of the sentence? And why does he use the same universal term, ekastos? which enlarges the extension of this command beyond the other? Our brethren say the children were excluded. Strange language to exclude them! Let him believe it who can believe it!! The reader is requested to turn to Exodus 12, 22, and see for himself.

Let us compare a little further. When our Lord Jesus Christ instituted the sacred supper, he said, Take, eat, Labete, phagete. Both commands are worded alike, and are of the same extension. The supper not being designed, like baptism, for a household ordinance, the Saviour is careful so to word these two commands, as to exclude children and infants from eating, as well as from taking; and though when he gave the cup, he said, Drink ye all of it, he uses the word pantes; it is in apposition with umeis, ye, and the verb is in the same number and person as the verb take. The phraseology is not changed, the extension is not enlarged. But when Peter gives one command to repent, and another to be baptized, he is as careful to use a form of words, which includes the children, in the command for baptism, as the Saviour is to exclude them from the supper. A form which had

been known, of old time, even from the institution of the passover, to comprehend both parents and children. And the same form of words, which in the former case will include them, will also in the latter. This is undeniable.

2. We will, in the next place, attend to the analogy of scripture. "For the promise is unto you, and to your chil dren." These words contain the substance, or are in substance, the same as the promissory part of the covenant made with Abraham, Gen. 17, 7: "I will establish my covenant with thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations, to be a God to thee and to thy seed after thee." The family promise, as we have noticed before, is of the same nature and ex. tension. In the New Testament, the covenant made with Abraham, is often by way of emphasis, called The Promise, as Gal. 3, 16, to Abraham and to his seed were the promises made. Rom. 4, 16: "To the end the promise might be sure to all the seed." 9, 8: "The children of the promise (believing Gentiles) are counted for the seed." Eph. 3, 6: "That the Gentiles might be counted for the seed." well known promise, grant, covenant, or exhibition of mercy, is to parents and their seed. As we have before fully shewn, God is the God of families, and will not admit parents, without their children.

The

Now, Peter says, the promise is to you, adults, who ask to know what you shall do to be saved. God's blessed prom.