cession of pious persons was continued among those, who received the seal of the covenant in their infancy; so, although many professing Christian parents are unfaithful to their children, and many baptized children irreligious and profane, yet some Christian parents are in a degree faithful; and principally among those, who have been baptized in infancy, religion has been continued from one generation to another. It is very evident, that the greater part of the professing Christians of the present day, were baptized on their parents account; and where are we to look for true Christians, unless among professors? In the late revivals of religion in New England, the hopeful subjects of renewing grace have been chiefly among those, who received baptism in their infancy, or childhood. Many, and it is presumed, the greater part of those, who now belong to the baptist churches, in New England, were baptized on their parents' account, and since they became adults, have renounced their infant baptism. How many of them, since they professed religion, have been drawn away from other churches? If such are true Christians, can they all say, that they have experienced no benefit from their infant baptism? can they all say, that they have received

no grace from God, as keeping covenant and mercy with their believing parents?

Infant baptism appears to be one of the important means, which God has instituted for the salvation of sinners; and it is liable to no objection in respect to its utility, but what is common to all Divine ordinances. The utility of baptism in general, of the Christian sabbath, of a preached gospel, and of the Lord's supper, is, by many denied. How often has it been said by the opposers of Christian doctrines and duties, that those, who are baptized, and come to the table of the Lord, who pray in their families, and attend public worship have no more religion, than others. With no less impropriety, it is said by many, that infant baptism is a useless ceremony. All such suggestions arise from profane unbelief, and are highly reproach'ful to the Author of all Divine institutions.

Our Saviour says, "Take heed that ye dispise not one of these little ones."* If, by little ones we are to understand principally believers, who excel in humility, or weak believers,t yet it is possible for a person to transgress the spirit of our Saviour's caution, by speaking contemptuously of infants, and of infant bap

Matt. xviii. 10. + See Matt. xviii. 4, 6. and Rom. xiv. 1,

tism.* It may have been the case, though it does not seem probable, that the little child, whom Jesus set in the midst of his disciples, was then a believer. He was so small, that -Jesus took him in his arms.† Let no one dispise young children, and show, that he himself does not resemble them. Let us remember the children, who in the temple cried, "Hosanna to the Son of David." Let us bear in mind, that God perfects praise "out of the mouths 曩 of babes and sucklings."

When the glorious promises of the new covenant shall have been more fully accomplished, when the Jews shall have been restor ed to the favour of God, and the new covenant shall have been more completely made with the house of Israel, including Jews and Gentiles, who knows, but that all the children of Christ. ian parents will receive grace to "know" the Lord, in their childhood? If this shall be the case, will there not appear a propriety in their being baptized even in infancy? But such a change in the state of things would not alter the nature of baptism.,

Objection 4. There was an express command to circumcise infants; but there is no ex

* See Matt. xviii. 5. and Luke ix. 48. See Heb. viii, 11.

† Mark ix. 36.

press command to baptize infants; and whereas the Scriptures expressly speak of the baptism of women, they contain no express account,. that infants are baptized.

This is the most important objection, that can be brought against infant baptism. But after what has been said in these discourses, it will, perhaps, be unnecessary to say much in answer to this objection.

Though the Scriptures contain no express command to give baptism to infants, nor any express example of it, yet we may have sufficient reasons for regarding infant baptism, as a Divine institution. If we have sufficient reason for regarding it, let us not be too solicitous to know, why there is no express command, nor express example.

We may imagine, that it would have been happy, if the Scriptures had spoken more fully and particularly, in various respects, of baptism, and given more circumstantial accounts of the baptism of multitudes, and of individuals. But the concise manner, in which the Scriptures speak of baptism, is calculated to try the dispositions of mankind; whether they will humbly, diligently and prayerfully endeavour to learn and do their duty respecting baptism; and whether one Christian will be

suitably candid towards another, that thinks and practises 'differently from him in this respect. To answer the objection more directly. Let it be remembered, that there is nothing in the Scriptures against infant baptism. There is nothing said, from which it can be inferred, that infants ought not to be baptized; nor any account of the administration of baptism, from which it can be inferred, that infants were not baptized. And is there nothing in the Scriptures in favour of infant baptism? Is there not much in the Scriptures in favour of it? And aré not the Scripture arguments in favour of it, greatly confirmed by the practice of the church, since the time of the apostles?

One reason, why it might be important to specify men and women* is, (according to what was remarked in the preceding discourse) that in the ancient church females did not receive the token of the Abrahamic covenant. If circumcision never had existed, it might seem more necessary, that there should be something explicit about the baptism of infants, than about the baptism of women. From what is said in Gal. iii. 28. we may know, that the baptized persons spoken of in verse 27, included females.

*See Acts viii. 12.