the pious Zachariah and Elizabeth circumcised John, the eighth day, and so Joseph and Mary the Redeemer. So, that according to preceding dispensations, it appears that the children of God's people were to be dedicated, and were considered as the subjects of the administration. If the same law is in force, then they are the subjects of it now, if it is not altered. This brings me to shew, (4.) That the covenant, as to privileges and obligation, is not abridged.

Those who object are ready to say, where is your precept or example?

Example of household baptism has been produced.

But the question, with much more propriety, is to be urged on the other hand: Where is precept or example to show the covenant to have been abridged, as it respects the seed of God's people? If God has not done it, who has a right to exclude them? It is inconsistent that God should revoke the covenant. Indeed, it is said to be to a thousand generations, as it respects the seed of God's people-visiting the iniquities, &c." Indeed, the Gentiles are not heirs of the promise, if thus altered.!

On the principle, that the covenant was abridg ed, it is strange the Jews should not have objected this against christianity, especially, as they placed unsuitable dependence on covenant relation. find, with all their cavils, no objection on this footing.

We

Such an alteration would be inconsistent with the peculiar privileges of the christian dispensa

tion.

It is represented as a day of peculiar light and grace, and therefore, what would, above every thing else, enhance condemation.

But this must be a great abridgement of privi leges.

Should any say, that the promises to the parent respecting his seed, and their being made the subjects of the administration of the covenant, are no privilege This would be directly in the face of Scripture: Much every way.

David, and others of the godly, esteemed it a great privilege. "Though my house be not so with God," says he, &c. Indeed, many of the godly have had great comfort in the exercise of faith in the covenant.

It directly appears that there has been no alteration, as to the extent of the covenant, in respect to the seed of God's people.

The Prophet Jeremiah, in the 30th chapter, speaking of the blessings that should be enjoyed in the gospel day, says in the 20th verse, "Their children shall be as aforetime.” What can this mean, but that they shall enjoy the same privileges under the christian, as other dispensations?

So our Saviour taught, that his kingdom, or visible church was in part made up. So the Apos tle declares, that children of God's people are holy. He means, no doubt, in the sense, that the seed of God's people, under the preceding dispen-" sations, were holy, viz. as expressing visible cov

enant relation.

These things being established, viz. that the covenant is, for substance, the same as that revealed to Abraham; that circumcision was a part of the administration, a mark that God set on his people; that baptism under the gospel was God's mark The administration under the preceding dispensation extended to the children of God's people, and the covenant not having been abridg ed-It plainly follows then, that household bapI

tism is as clear a duty as household circumcision. We may consider that the command to God's people, to dedicate their children, is now as fully in force as ever, to give up their household in baptism -which now is another mark which God has ordered to be set on his people. To illustrate by a similitude that is of common use; suppose a husbandman were to commit his flock to a shepherd, directing him to apply a certain mark, and should say, by my flock, or by my sheep, I mean old and young. Should he afterwards direct a different mark, would this exclude any from his flock? If there was silence, it would be sufficiently clear ; which, however, is far from being the case.

It must be presumption for a creature to abridge the obligation or privilege that God has in his covenant granted.

As to seal or external sign, the covenant knows no distinction as to the believing parent and household.

It is therefore without any covenant warrant, and indeed, a breach of covenant to separate them. I shall pass arguments from the New-Testament other than what have been stated, as they are

common.

Before I proceed to speak of the mode, I shall attend to a few objections.

1. It is objected by some, that as there is no reason to view any without manifestations of change otherwise than in the gall of bitterness, there is an impropriety in the application of such. a holy sign and seal to such. I have spoken of this, where I have attended to the nature of God's promises to the parents, as they respect the children. I shall therefore omit it, as it would lead to too great a length for the present occasion. I would only observe, that the objection lies no more against infant baptism than infant circumcision.

As circumcision is a seal of the righteousness of faith, an external sign of pardon and regeneration; so, those who hold that infants, according to divine institution, were to be circumcised, are under the same obligation as others, to answer the above objection.

2. The objection from the silence of the NewTestament has been answered.

3. It is objected, that the Apostles preached, "believe and be baptized."

But to whom did they so preach? Not to those who had already been baptized: That will not be pretended. Was it to infant households? A man, preaching thus, would render himself ridiculous. So we should preach to unbelieving, unbaptized adul, who could understand and be treated with. In this way, where can the weight of the objection lie ?

4. It is objected, that infant baptism is a novelty, or was not practised in the three first centuries. Though I do pot lay great stress on human authority, where we have divine; yet I would observe, that the contrary is abundantly true, if we may believe the primitive fathers. They speak of it in such a manner, as to lead us to think it not disputed by any, in the three first centuries.

Irenæus, who must have lived near to the Apostolic times, and, as he himself says, was an intimate of Polycarp, argues from infant baptism, or regeneration, using the words as synonymous: He ⚫takes infant baptism as a given principle.

So, Origen, who lived in the third century, treating on original sin, says, "Are infants baptized according to the usage of the church, if they have nothing that wants forgiveness?"

Also, Cyprian, who lived in the third century, mentions, that it was a question in his day, wheth

er infants might be baptized before the eighth day?

At a council on the subject, there were sixty-six ministers, and the question was not, whether infants were to be baptized, but what was the proper age?

If it were necessary, I could mention many more, such as Tertullian, Ambrose, Pelagus, &c. I shall now say a few words respecting the mode of baptism.

Some suppose that it is essential to baptism, that the subject be plunged all over in water: And some have held, that in cases, where a hand, or any part of the body is not immersed, it is no baptism.

It is strange that creatures can make so much of modes and forms.

It is true, that these things are important, if expressly pointed out; yet they are not essential to the duty.

If, as the Methodists suppose, kneeling is the only posture, or mode, in which prayer is to be performed; yet I cannot conceive, that any can be so absurd as to suppose, that there can be no acceptable prayer in any other manner. I do not know, that any who hold to sprinkling, hold it essential to baptism.

. I would examine the evidence for these different modes.

1. As to plunging, as I have said, there is not a precept, or example in all the Bible for plunging. The very word in the original is otherwise, according to the Greek Lexicon.

My.construction is according to the use of the word in the New-Testament.. When it is said, washing of cups, platters and tables, it is baptism. Now the mode of washing tables is not by immer

sion.