lief of one does not exclude the other from giving it up to God by faith, in hope of its obtaining the saving blessings of the covenant of grace. 1 Cor. vii. 14.

2. The right of the infant-seed of believers to baptism, may be farther proved, from their being capable of the privileges

"uncleanness. For all the congregation of Israel is commanded to solemnize the passover. And, next, the Proselytes circumcised and become Jews; whether "bondmen born in the house or bought with money, &c. Exod. xii. 48. When a “stranger will sojourn with thee, and keep the passover to the Lord, let all his "males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it, and he shall be as "one that is born in the land.” On this passage in Exodus, Dr. Jennings observes these two things: "First, That when a man thus became a Proselyte, all his "males were to be circumcised as well as himself, whereby his children were ad"mitted into the visible church of God, in his right, as their father. Secondly, "That upon this, he should be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the "Jewish church and nation as well as be subject to the whole law: He should "be as one born in the land." In short; not only men and women, but also young children partook of this ordinance, as soon as they were capable of answering the revealed design of it, for-no positive rule was given them on this head, like that of circumcision. It is manifest that since the injunction respected not only individuals of such a description, but also families as such, every member without exception had a legal right to the ordinance; and nothing prevented infants from a participation, but what lay in the natural incapacity to answer the design of it. "Besides the ordinary and universal sacraments of circumcision and the passover, some extraordinary symbols of divine grace were granted to the Israelites "in the wilderness, which in the New Testament are applied to Christ and his "benefits, and said to have the same signification with our sacraments. And "they are in order these-The passage in the cloud through the Red Sea-the "manna which was rained from heaven-The water issuing out of the rock" and the brazen serpent erected by Moses for the cure of the Israelites." To this we may add, among other things, with the author now referred to the clear and familiar display of the divine majesty and the adumbration of divine mysteries daily sealed by religious ceremonies. Our subject does not call for an investigation of these particulars, but I would remark in general, that the principle for which we contend, is so far from being weakened, that it is abundantly corroborated by the inspired testimony of every dispensation, and the Mosaic in particular-That it is a common dictate of right reason, children should from their earliest infancy share in their parents' privileges, as far as they are capable, when no positive authority contravenes it.

From the preceding induction of sacred evidence in favour of children being sharers of the seals of grace in common with their parents, we conclude, that for the space of four thousand years, that is to say, from the creation to Christ, it was a rule universally incumbent on parents to treat their children as entitled to religious privileges equally with themselves, according to their capacity.-And as a counterpart of what was observed of privileges, we may remark that, in vir tue of the same uniform principle, often when the parents were punished with excommunication or death, their infant children were included with them. As might be instanced in-the deluge-the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrahthe case of Achan the Son of Zerah (Josh. vii. 24.)—the matter of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram-the case of the conquered nations (Deut. xx. 16, 17.)-and many more instances, down to the destruction of Jerusalem. Far be it from us to sup pose, that the parents' crimes and impenitence made their suffering children incapable of mercy-that mercy which proceeds on an invisible plan, and belongs to a purely spiritual dispensation. Yet, that children, during their dependence on their parents, should share equally with them in judgment and mercies externally, is the effect of an all-wise constitution coeval with mankind. DR. WILLIAMS ON BAPTISM.

signified therein; and under an indispensable obligation to perform the duties which they, who dedicate them to God, make a public profession of, as agreeable to the design of this ordinance. None are to be excluded from any of those ordinances, which Christ has given to the church, but they who are either in a natural or a moral sense, to be deemed incapable subjects thereof. Some, indeed, are incapable of engaging in ordinances, by reason of a natural unmeetness for them, as infants are not to be admitted to the Lord's supper, as being under a natural incapacity; and, ignorant and profane persons are not to be admitted to it, as being under a moral incapacity; and, for the same reason, a wicked man, when adult, is not a proper subject of baptism: But if there be neither of these bars to exclude persons, they are not to be denied the advantage of any ordinance. This, I think will be allowed by all; and therefore, the only thing I need prove is, that infants are not incapable of the principal things signified in baptism. That they are not incapable of being dedicated to God, has been proved under the last head; and now we shall consider several privileges that are signified therein, which they are equally capable of; as,

(1.) Baptism is an external sign of that faith and hope which he has, that dedicates a person to God, that the person dedicated, shall obtain the saving blessings of the covenant of grace; Now, that infants are capable of these blessings, none will deny, who suppose them capable of salvation. If we suppose infants not to have regenerating grace, which is neither to be affirmed or denied, it being a matter, at present, unknown to us; yet they are capable of having it, for the reason but now assigned; and though they cannot at present, put forth any acts of grace, they will be capable thereof, as soon as they are able to discern between good and evil.

They are not excluded by their infant-state, from being under Christ's special care; which is, doubtless, to be extended to elect infants as well as others; and they are capable of being discharged from the guilt of original sin, though not of laying claim to this privilege, which they may be enabled to do afterwards. Now, if infants are capable of these privileges, certainly the person who dedicates them to God, (who has a right to do it, inasmuch as they are his property, and he is able to do it by faith) may devote them to him, with the exercise of this grace, and a fiducial expectation that they shall obtain these privileges: And, indeed, when we engage in this ordinance, we ought to expect some saving blessings, as the consequence hereof, as much as when we engage in any other ordinance of divine appointment.

Object. It is objected to this, that though a person may

de

vote his child to God in hope of his obtaining saving blessings; yet he cannot exercise any act of faith, that he shall obtain them Therefore though he may perform this duty with a degree of hope, or, at least, with a desire hereof; yet he cannot do it by faith: Therefore, if children are to be devoted to God by faith, they are not the subjects of this ordinance.

Answ. To this it may be replied, that some things may be said to be done by faith, when we have not a certain ground to expect the saving fruits and effects thereof. Suppose an infant was expiring and the tender parent concerned about its salvation, whether he has a certain expectation that it shall be saved or no; yet he may, and ought to be earnest with God by faith and prayer, that the child may be happy when taken out of the world; and, if he finds that he has the lively exercise of faith, with respect to this matter, this will afford him some degree of hope, that God, who excited this grace in him, will own it by giving the blessings which he desires; which is the only comfort that a parent can take in the loss of his infant-seed: And, may there not be this act of faith, when he dedicates him to God in baptism? Did we assert that giving up our children to God by faith, necessarily infers their obtaining saving blessings, the objection would have some force in it; or if there could be no faith exercised, without our being certainly persuaded that this should have a saving effect; then it might be argued, that because we are not certain that infants shall be saved, therefore we cannot give them up to God by faith But if there may be faith, where there is not this certain persuasion, or any ground by which this matter may be determined, then, I think, it will follow, that infants may be devoted to God by faith, as well as with a desire of their obtaining saving blessings, and, consequently, this objection does not take away the force of our argument. We are far from supposing that baptismal dedication necessarily infers these saving blessings, or is inseparably connected with them, so that the one cannot be without the other. Therefore, it is sufficient to our purpose, to suppose that they are capable of those blessings which faith desires, and, it may be, hopes for; and, consequently, of those things which are principally signified in baptism.

(2.) Infants are under an indispensable obligation to perform the duties which are incumbent on those who are given up to God in baptism, and signified thereby. This respects some things future, (they being, at present, incapable of performing any duty) and, indeed, obligations to perform duties may respect the time to come, as well as the time present; as when a person is bound to pay a just debt, this obligation is valid,

though it is not expected that it should be immediately paid. Thus infants are professedly bound, when given up to God, to be the Lord's: Whether ever they will give up themselves to him by faith, or no, is unknown to us, nevertheless, the obligation will take place as soon as they are capable of doing good or evil. Therefore it follows, that the parent may bind his child to be the Lord's, inasmuch as the obligation is just, as being founded in God's right to obedience, and when he has laid his child under it in this ordinance, he ought afterwards strictly to charge him to stand to it, as he would not contract double guilt; not only in neglecting to perform an indispensable duty, but to pay that debt of obedience which has been so solemnly acknowledged in this ordinance. These arguments taken from the nature and design of the ordinance of baptism, give me the fullest conviction concerning our warrant to apply it to infants: But there is one more which is not wholly to be passed over, viz.

3. It appears, that the infant-seed of believers, are to be consecrated or devoted to God in baptism, because they are included in the covenant wherein God has promised that he will be a God to his people, and to their seed; who are, upon this account, styled holy Ezra. ix. 2. And it is said concerning Israel, that they are the seed of the blessed of the Lord, and their off-spring with them, Isa. lxv. 23. the branch is said to be holy, together with the root, Rom. xi. 16. and the children of the promise are counted for the seed, chap. ix. 8. that is included in that covenant in which God promised that he would be a God to children, together with their parents, as he says to Abraham; I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and to thy seed after thee, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, Gen. xvii. 7. And, in this sense, I think, we are to understand the apostle's words, in 1 Cor. vii. 14. (a) The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife, and the zunbelieving wife by the believing husband; else were your chil

(a) Tertullian observes on this passage, that if either parent were christians, the children were enrolled in Jesus Christ by early baptism. And it fairly implies infant baptism in the days of Paul. For, having declared that the unbelieving partner was not to be divorced according to the law of Moses, which held the heathen to be unclean; he pronounces the unbelievers set apart by such marriage to God, as far as regarded that marriage; and in proof of this be refers to a fact as known to the Corinthians, namely that the children of such marriages were received into the church, and treated as holy, that is devoted to God. Now if the children of such marriages were not treated as heathens, but owned by the church, and this could be in no other way than by receiving them by baptism, there can be no doubt, that this was the case when both parents were believers.Аxxxpros & axios never mean illegitimate and legitimate; and if they did, this would be no proof that the unbelieving party was consecrated to God, so as that the children should be clean and devoted to him

dren unclean, but now are they holy. By these, and other ex-pressions of the like-nature, we are not to understand the special saving grace of regeneration and sanctification; for that is not a privilege that descends from parents to children by birth, as our Saviour says, We are born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God, John i. 13. Therefore, when some, who are on the other side of the question, think that we intend hereby the saving blessings of the eovenant, or that holiness which is an internal qualification or meetness for heaven, they do not rightly understand our meaning. Some, indeed, may have given occasion to conclude that they intend this, who speak of the grace of regeneration as conferred in baptism; and assert, that it intitles persons to salvation, if they happen to die before they are adult: Whereas, if afterward they appear to be in an unconverted state, by the wickedness of their conversation, they are said to fall from that grace This is what I do not well understand; nor do I intend, when I speak of the infants of believers as an holy seed, that they are all internally regenerate or sanctified from the womb; but they are included in the external dispensation of the covenant of grace; which must be reckoned a greater advantage than if they had descended from Indians, who are strangers to it.

I am sensible, indeed, that they who deny infant-baptism, suppose that the holiness of the children spoken of by the apostle in the scripture but now referred to, who descended from parents, of whom one only was a believer, implies nothing else but their being legitimate: But that does not seem to be his meaning; inasmuch as marriage is an ordinance of the law of nature, which all, without distinction, have a right to, heathens as much as Christians; and the children of the one, are as legitimate as those of the other. Therefore, there is something else intended by their being holy, namely, the same thing that is meant in those other scriptures that we but now referred to, as taken for an external relative holiness, whereby God must be supposed to have a greater regard to them than to others who are styled unclean; and, if this does not infer, as was before observed, their being internally regenerate or sanctified: yet it is not a word without an idea affixed to it: Therefore we must understand thereby, an holiness in the lowest sense of the word; as children are said to be an heritage of the Lord, and the fruit of the womb his reward, Psal. cxxxvii. 7. or, it denotes the obligation they are laid under, by the privilege of their descending from believing parents, to adhere to their fathers' God; which obligation is professed or acknowledged, when they are dedicated to him in baptism, as has been before observed; and this is the use which I would make