were not brought to be healed of any diseases, cannot be easily granted: for though it is not expressly said, they were; yet since it was the Lord's custom frequently to heal by laying on his hands, it is probable enough this was the design of those who brought them to him, though it is only said, they brought them to have his hands laid on them. The imposition of his hands could not well be the ultimate end, but only the intermediate, in order to something else; which might be healing, for what appears, but cannot be supposed to be their being baptized. Or if Christ did not lay his hands on them to heal them, it was perhaps, as Origen puts it, 'They believed that no evil spirit could enter, nor any other misfortune befall those infants or children whom Christ had once touched, by reason ' of some virtue that was thereby communicated to 'them. And since the evil powers are continually lying in wait to corrupt men's minds from the beginning; I am of opinion, that they who brought the children to Christ, seeing his mighty power, brought them to him, that by laying his hands ' on them, &c., by means of the touch (dià Tŷs áþñs) every evil might be expelled',' &c. 6 6 6 6 6 There is therefore no necessity to suppose so readily, that they were brought to receive spiritual blessings; for, what spiritual blessings could they receive? Not remission of sins, says the doctor; for the Jews did not think them guilty of any; and we never find hands were laid on any for that purpose. But it was, says he, to obtain for them some 'spiritual blessing appertaining to the kingdom of God.' What spiritual blessing this could be, or on 6 r In Matth. p. 373. B. what grounds it is asserted, I see not; and the doctor gives no reason for it. But he puts another supposition borrowed from Dr. Lightfoot, that Christ laid his hands on them, ' to own them as belonging to his kingdom.' But this could not be the meaning of it, both because we nowhere find this ceremony used for this purpose; and he had just before declared, of such is the kingdom of heaven, before he took them in his arms, and laid his hands on them. The laying on of his hands therefore must be for some other end. Besides, if they were capable of spiritual blessings, as undoubtedly they are of being saved by Christ, what is all this to infant-baptism? Will it follow, that because they may be happy hereafter, they must be baptized here? Many infants shall, and all may, be saved without being baptized. And there is a great deal to this purpose comprehended in our Saviour's saying, of such, speaking even of unbaptized infants, is the kingdom of heaven. The fourth observation the doctor is pleased to make, is particularly on these words, for of such is the kingdom of heaven: from whence he thinks it may reasonably be collected, that there is something in little children, why they should not be 'hindered from coming to him, besides their being 6 6 ⚫ emblems of humility;' and this he supposes can be nothing but the fitness of them to be early dedicated to the service of God, and to enter into covenant with him by the rites appointed by him for that end.' But though it will be readily allowed, that infants are capable of receiving the kingdom, it can in no wise follow, that this means nothing else but their fitness to enter into covenant. This is directly begging the question. If by king dom of heaven were meant the church of Christ, there might indeed be some greater colour for the doctor's way of arguing: but if it means only the kingdom of glory, as it plainly does, then the doctor's argument is grounded on a mistake; for though infants are subjects of the kingdom of glory, it will not on that account appear necessary for them to be baptized, in order to qualify them for that glory on the contrary, it rather follows, since as infants they are subjects of that kingdom, they have no need of this ceremony to give them a right which they have already. 6 6 The right reverend bishop of Salisbury says, that 'whatever these words may signify mystically, the literal meaning of them is, that little children may be admitted into the dispensation of the Messias; and by consequence, that they may be baptized. Thus his lordship seems to make it a plain case; but I cannot perceive how the words have any relation to children's being received into that dispensation at all. The kingdom of heaven can in no wise mean so here, though it be true, as his lordship says, this is the sense of the words almost universally through the whole Gospel: for St. Mark has preserved some of our Lord's words on that occasion, which make it necessary to understand thereby the kingdom of glory: thus chap. x. 15, our Lord says, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein; that is, into glory; for into the church the greatest villains may be admitted, if they conceal their wickedness; so that he must mean, they shall not enter into his glorious kingdom. Besides, if the s Articles, p. 397. kingdom did mean the church, how does it appear infants were to be admitted into it by baptism? Baptism is the only way of admitting adult persons, but is nowhere prescribed to infants. I should rather imagine from the words, that if infants are to be admitted at all, by any ceremony, it must be only by laying on of hands, and by prayer; for neither our Lord's words, nor his actions, give us room to think of any other. And if this way of arguing be good, it may equally be urged, that infants ought to be communicated too; for if, because of such is the kingdom of heaven, they may therefore be admitted into the dispensation of the Messiah, and consequently have a right to the privileges and sacraments of it, they must have a right to the supper as well as to baptism. But his lordship, and our adversaries, do refuse them one; and we beg leave to refuse them the other for the very same reasons, viz. because they are not capable of it, nor of the conditions. which the church of England itself confesses are required of persons to be baptized, viz. faith and repentance. Since then there is nothing in Christ's words for the practice of the pædobaptists; the passage of St. Hermas, which our author compares with these words of Christ, cannot be thought to prove by any supposed affinity between them, that St. Hermas, or the church of that time, knew any thing of infantbaptism. Besides, I have not only shewn the arguments from the writings of the Fathers hitherto have no reference to it; but also, as far as things of this nature can be shewn, that all of them to this time, namely, for about a hundred years after |