6

all parents; the Divine Being chose them. In the choice, children have no agency whatever.

But this doctrine, as it represents the covenant of works, is materially conceded by Mr C. p. 159. The token or seal of this transaction, was the 'tree of life; which was to him a token, and formal guarentee, that life would be enjoyed, on condition of his obedience:? which of course would have been the same to all his posterity. I therefore argue, and that from principles conceded; that, if the moral relation of Adam to his posterity was such, that a seal, through him, could be administered to every one of his children, although unborn; and this because he was divinely constituted their agent; that, therefore, a seal, through the relation of parents to their children, may be justly administered to their children, after they are born.

In all the transactions of life, by contract, the doctrine of infant baptism is recognized, we bind ourselves and our heirs. Considering the minor. ity of our children, we deal for them, under this consideration, that we are their agents and they incapable of understanding. We mention duties to be performed by them, and in their name seal contracts. The conduct even of baptists, contradict their theory on baptism. Their principles, if true, destroys almost all contracts in life. I therefore reason:

we

If parents may contract and seal the same for their infant offspring; then infant baptism is right. But the former is true, and therefore the latter.

But take a look at the baptists syllogism.

If children, by their ignorance and want of faith, are incapable of understanding the contract, or covenant of grace; then children must not be bap

tized. But the former is true and therefore the latter.

Apply the same argument to other things and you will immediately see its genuine force.

If children by their ignorance and want of knowledge, are incapable of understanding a contract, or covenant; then children must not be parties in a covenant, or contract. But the former is truc and therefore the latter. Now, every person that ever saw a bond or will, knows this conclusion to be false. But such is the argument of baptists against infant baptism.

The doctrine of infant baptism is universally recognized in scripture. It was entirely unnecessessary either to give any precept in so many words, requiring the baptism of infants; or yet mention the case of individual children baptized. This seal, in scripture, was established in the chuch, for more than a thousand years, and thousands of examples given us of infants initiated by it; and, although, as we have shewn, the form of the seal differed, yet its nature did not undergo any change. To this seal the Jews had been accustomed from its first institution in Abraham. There could be no necessity to repeat that so well understood by the ancient church.

It would indeed have been an evident curtailing of the privileges of the church of Christ, had the infants of the New testament, been excluded from that security, or from those privileges to which infant members of the Old testament church were entitled. They would have complained, that the children of their fathers were received members of the visible church, while their children were excluded. Nay, that they enjoyed a seal of the covenant of grace, an intimation of their

security, right and title of its blessings; while their children must be raised like the children of heathens.

The baptists, from this specious but false reason, deny the warrantableness of infant baptism; because, the persons baptized, are not only incapable of believing, but also of discharging the duties required in the covenant. While yet, it will be easily made appear, that they concede the principles of Pedo Baptists in full. They declare that the rite of circumcision eonstituted the infants of the Jews, members of their nation. The promise ' of the covenant of circumcision was not,' says Mr. C. 'made to the Jews, as members of the church; but of the nation.'

It is granted, that infant children are not only incapable of believing, but also of discharging the duties required of professing members. But I assert, that they are as capable of discharging the duties required of professing members of the visible church, as they are of doing the duties of a civil citizen. Accordingly, on Mr. C's plan of reasoning, I argue that circumcision was not a seal of admission into the Jewish nation, because it was absurd, to constitute any person a civil citizen, who was incapable of discharging any of the duties of that character. The moment a person acquires citizenship, they are entitled to as many of the privileges as they are capable of enjoying; and bound by all the laws of the nation. Why then does Mr C. and other baptists, make such a lamentable outcry against the Pedo Baptists, for constituting persons members of the visible church, because they are incapable of believing, or obeying the divine law, in any respect, seeing they, at the same time, argue that infants were, by the

divine command, constituted members of a civil kingdom, and agreed that they were placed in such circumstances, as that they are under every civil obligation, and yet are unable to discharge any of the duties of that relation? Let us compare the baptist and Pedo Baptist concessions on this subject, and their similarity will strike any reader.

Bap. A child, as the member of a nation, is entitled to the security and protection of that nation.

P. Bap. A child, as the member of a church, is entitled to the security and protection of Christ, the King and Head of the church.

Bap. A child, as the member of a nation, has a temporal subsistence secured by the promise of

that nation.

P. Bap. A child, as the member of the church, has a spiritual subsistence secured by the promise of Christ, King and Head of the church.

Bap. A child, although in a state of infancy, was constituted the public member of a nation by covenant, and the same confirmed by circumci⚫sion, a public seal of the same.

P. Bap. A child, although in a state of infancy, is constituted a public member of the church by covenant, and the same confirmed by baptism, a public seal of the same.

It is hence evident, that, by whatever argument a baptist will urge against a Pedo baptist, that a child is disqualified by its infancy from becoming a member of the church, a Pedo baptist will urge, precisely the same against their becoming members of a nation. And I might further add, that an infant citizen of a nation is bound, in virtue of the relation in which it stands to the nation, to become acquainted with the laws of its nation, and to render obedience to the same.

In like manner, an infant citizen of the kingdom of Christ, is bound by virtue of the relation in which it stands to the church, to become acquainted with her laws, and yield obedience to the same. It follows, that every possible objection which Mr. C. or any baptist, can bring against the church membership of infants, stands equally against their citizenship; and on the contrary, we may justly argue upon the principles of common sense, that as children, by circumcision, even by the concession of the baptists, are constituted members of a kingdom, in which activity is required, and yet are incapable of being active: There is nothing absurd in constituting them members of the visible church, in which nothing more is required, in relation to its laws.

Mr. C. spends a considerable time, in sporting upon this question, "what good does infant sprinkling do its subjects.' I reply that, allowing the difference of relation and privilege, it. does as nuch good, as constituting them citizens of a civil kimgdom by circumcision. They are equally capable of obeying the laws, and enjoying the privilege of both.

We shall now attend to his view of this subject. His great levity of expression, so inconsistent with the solemn subject, shall not receive any further notice, than what is absolutely necessary to do his arguments justice.

When I hear any Pedo-Baptist, pleading for the 'baptism of infants, upon the footing of the faith of the parents, that is, on the footing of carnal generation, it brings to my recollection, the reply of John the baptist, made to the Jews, who solicited baptism, upon the footing of their great, 'great, great, many times great grand father, Abraham. They were as confident of the valid

6

6