received into covenant with their parents, and had the seal of it applied to them, in the family of Abraham!

And if the children of believers be holy, in the sense explained, and were so in the apostolic churches; are they not the proper subjects of baptism? Who can forbid water, that they should not be baptized?

It may be added, that consistent with these words, thus understood, this apostle treated and addressed the children of believing parents, as being numbered with the saints, and so as saints. He addresses his epistle to the church at Ephesus, and to that at Colosse, to the saints at Ephesus, and at Colosse, and to no other persons; and he speaks to such, and no others, in those, and in all his epistles. Yet here we find him particularly addressing, and exhorting children, as included in the church, and among the saints. "Children, obey your parents in the Lord; for this is right. Children, obey your parents in all things; for this is well pleasing unto the Lord."*

Other passages in the New Testament have been often mentioned, by writers on this subject, in support of the baptism of the children of believers: But it is not thought needful, particularly to consider them here: Since these, which have been brought into view, are supposed sufficient to shew, that it is the will of Christ, that the institution of a church in the family of Abraham, so far as it respects children, including them with their parents, and applying the seal of the covenant to them, should not be repealed under the gospel.

4. That the apostolic churches and primitive christians did admit their children to baptism, as proper subjects of it, is argued from the general, and almost universal practice of it in all ages since, from that time. This is a fact, which writers on this subject have abundantly proved. From writings now extant it appears, that infant baptism was practised in the christian churches, in the second, third, and fourth centuries. And it was as

serted by writers in the church in those ages, that it had been the universal practice from the days of the apostles; and not one person appears to have denied it, or to suggest that it was not thus handed down, as an insti

Eph. vi. 1. Col. iii. 20.

tution of Christ. And it appears to have been the common practice in christian churches for above a thousand years, at least; and it is to this day the general practice in the christian world. If this were not the practice of the first christian churches, formed by the apostles, it seems impossible that it should be introduced at so early an age, as the universal practice, without opposition by any one church or person, as an innovation, and contrary to the practice of the primitive churches; and without any account, or notice given, when it was done, and by whom, and by whom it was opposed. Various heresies took place in the churches soon after the apostles' days, by which christians were divided in their sentiments and practice in many things, of which we have the history handed down to us; informed when, and by whom they were introduced. And learned men, who took pains to inform themselves, and were under advantages to do it, who lived in the early ages of the church, have given a particular account of the heresies which had arisen among christians in different parts of the world, and at different times; but they never mention infant baptism, as one of them; nor the omission or denial of it, as a christian institution, by any church or single person, who practised the baptism of any with water. By those heresies, professing christians were divided into parties, and became spies upon each other; and if they had not all been agreed in baptizing infants, and it had not been the universal practice before those divisions rose, but was introduced afterwards, it would have been impossible that they should all agree in it; or that they should be silent about it; and that none should dispute against it, and oppose it. If one party had adopted it, the other would oppose it, as an innovation, never known to be practised before, &c. But while they differed about many things, in this practice they were all agreed, as an institution handed down from the apostles.

Corruptions and practices have taken place in churches, especially in the church of Rome, which are contrary to the institutions of Christ, and were not practised by the primitive churches; but we have an account when most of those were introduced, and of great opposition made

to them by many; and they have never been universally received by the churches. If the baptism of children be not a divine institution, it is a great error indeed; a great corruption and abuse of the ordinance of baptism, and an utter perversion of it, to a purpose for which it was not instituted. And it is perfectly unaccountable (and may we not say impossible) that it should so universally take place in the church of Christ, and that so soon after the death of the apostles, without any opposition by any one person, for many centuries, and no account be handed down, of the time when it was introduced, and by whom, if it were not universally practised from the days of the apostles, but is an innovation, contrary to the original institution and practice of the churches?

But if the baptism of the children of believers be a divine institution, and universally practised by the churches in the apostles' days, agreeable to the foregoing arguments, and was handed down from them in the christian churches; then its taking place so generally, and even universally, from the earliest times, for so many ages, can be well accounted for, and appears perfectly consistent. This fact, therefore, increases the evidence, and serves to strengthen and confirm other arguments, which are thought to be in themselves fully conclusive, that the baptism of infants is a divine institution, and was practised by the apostolic churches.

THE NATURE AND DESIGN OF INFANT BAPTISM.

II. THE next thing proposed on the subject of infant baptism, is, to consider the import and design of it, and what good ends it may answer to the parents and their children.

If it be evident and certain, that this is a divine institution, it ought to be punctually attended and practised, though the reason, design, and end of it were not to be discovered, and none could tell or see of what benefit it can be to the parents or children. But if this were in fact the case, and it should appear to us only an unmean

ing, useless ceremony, and really of a bad tendency; this would greatly tend to blind us to the evidence, that it is indeed an institution of Christ; and to prejudice our minds, and shut our eyes, so as not to see it, however clear it may be. It is therefore no wonder that persons, who have imbibed this notion of infant baptism, and look into the Bible, and attend to the arguments which are brought in favour of it, and what is said against it, with this prejudice on their minds, should not be convinced that it is a divine institution; but reject it with a great degree of confidence, and religious zeal. In this view, the inquiry now before us is very impor tant and interesting. And if a rational and consistent account can be given of this institution, and the ground and design of it be discovered by the help of the scripture; and it can be shown in what respect it is suited to promote the good of parents and their children, and of the church; it will tend to remove prejudices, and to confirm the arguments which have been offered from the scripture, in favour of infant baptism.

This will be now attempted by offering the following observations and conclusions to the candid consideration, and careful examination of those who are willing to attend to this subject, and desirous to form right conceptions of it, and to know what is the reason, design and advantage of this institution.

1. The baptism of the children of believers is a covenant transaction, by which, in some sense or other, and in some degree, at least, the children are visibly taken into covenant, so as to be included in it; and are to be considered as sharing in the blessings of it, with their parents. No less than this can be made of the transaction with Abraham; and the covenant made with him and his seed, in which the seal of the covenant was applied to them. And the same constitution takes place in the christian church, with respect to children; and the appointed seal of the gospel covenant is therefore applied to them. If this were not a covenant transac tion, which has respect to the children, and they were in no sense included in the covenant, the application of the seal of the covenant to them, by baptizing them, would be an unmeaning transaction indeed; or rather

and it

would be a signification of that which is not true, and does not really take place. Nor would it answer to what was intended, and actually took place in the circumcision of children in the Abrahamic church, which was expressly called the token of the covenant, and the covenant itself, which God made, and established between himself, and Abraham and his seed. "I will make a covenant between me and thee. And I will establish my covenant between me and thee; and thy seed after thee; to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed. after thee. This is my covenant which ye shall keep between me and you, and thy seed after thee: Every man child among you shall be circumcised; shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. And the uncircumcised man child, whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant."* What can be more plain and certain, than those words make it, that the children of Abraham were as really included in the covenant made with him, of which circumcision was the appointed token and seal, as he himself was; and consequently that all the parents in Israel, and their circumcised children, were equally included in the same covenant? And who that believes in infant baptism, will deny that this is as much a covenant transaction as was the circumcision of the children of Abraham; and that the baptized children of believers are as really and as much in covenant, as the circumcised children of Abraham? Therefore, they who believe the baptism of infants to be a christian institution, have generally, if not universally, considered it as a covenant transaction, importing the children of believers to be included in the same covenant with their believing parents; though they may have differed in their notion of this covenant, as it respects children.

2. This covenant transaction in baptizing the children of believers, is between God and the parents. It respects the children indeed, which are baptized, but they are incapable of acting in the affair, so as to enter into covenant, by any act of theirs. If they be brought into covenant, and the seal of it set upon them, it must

• Gen. xvii.