it was the duty of men under the former dispensation, to worship God, and as the worship comprehended confession, thanksgiving and supplication; and as it was their duty to love their neighbor as themselves; the same must be the case now. But why? Because the change which took place had no respect to these subjects. These duties rested on principles common to both dispensations. Just so it is with the duty of consecrating children to God by a religious rite. This duty rests on the natural and immutable relation between parents and children, and on the general purpose and promise of God to propagate religion and perpetuate the church, by sanctifying the seed of believers. This was the divine economy formerly; and it is so now. It has as much influence now, as it formerly had. Its importance is above all conception, involving the religious character and the eternal destinies of men. Now the same token of this gracious economy, and of consecration to God, was formerly applied to parents and to children, and was thus applied for reasons which are common to all ages. It is plain, therefore, that the difference existing between the two dispensations cannot affect the subject before us, and that it is as suitable to apply the token of the Christian economy to children, as it formerly was to apply to them the token of the Abrahamic economy.

This course of reasoning, which is only auxiliary to the main argument, was introduced for the particular purpose of removing the difficulties which have frequently been felt in regard to Infant Baptism, on account of the change from one dispensation to another. This change, which is admitted to have been great and extensive, could not affect the propriety of consecrating children to God by a religious rite, for the plain reason, that it did not affect the principle on which such consecration rests. Though it affected the form of consecration, it did not affect the propriety of consecrating children; because the Christian economy, of which baptism is the seal, as properly relates to children, as that economy of which circumcision was the seal. Consequently no reason against Infant Baptism can arise from the difference between the Christian and the Abrahamic economy.

This was so per

The requisition of faith in order to baptism, may be thought to be a proof, that the application of baptism was meant to be more limited, than that of circumcision. But of whom was faith required in order to baptism? Of those, evidently, who were capable of understanding the nature of the requisition. The command to believe could relate to no other. fectly obvious, that no teacher of Christianity could have any occasion to mention it. This command, or any other command, coming from a just God, must be understood as relating to those only, who were capable of complying with it. So that the fact, stated exactly, was this; those who were capable of believing, that is, adult persons, were required to believe in order to be bap tized. A requisition not unlike this, was made under the former dispensation. Adult persons, in order to be admitted by circumcision into the society of God's people, were required to renounce idolatry, to believe in the God of Abraham, and to submit to the institutions and laws which he gave by Moses. Such faith as this, under the Mosaic economy, answered to the faith which is required under the Christian economy. The requisition of faith, then, in order to baptism, has nothing new in it, but this, that the faith required is to be adapted to the circumstances of the Christian dispensation; whereas the faith required before, was to be adapted to the Mosaic dispensation. Thus, in regard to adult persons, the case is very similar under both dispensations. How then can the fact, that Christ required adult persons to believe in order to be baptized, prove that baptism was to be more limited in its application than circumcision?

But it is said, that the circumcision of children was expressly commanded, and that, without this command, no one could have inferred from the institution of circumcision for adults, that children were to be circumcised. I grant, that an express command may have been necessary at first, to authorize the application of the seal of the covenant to children. And if baptism had been the first seal, such a command might have been necessary in relation to this. But the principle having been once established, that the seal of the covenant is to be applied to children, there can be no

occasion for the repetition of a divine command to justify an adherence to that principle. In respect to circumcision, an express command was given; because circumcision was the first rite which was appointed to be the seal of God's covenant. Had baptism been the first seal, and had Infant Baptism been settled by divine command, as infant circumcision was; and had the practice of God's people been for ages conformed to it; and had circumcision been then introduced in the place of baptism, as the seal of the Christian covenant; who will say that a new command would have been necessary to authorize the circumcision of infants? But, on the other hand, if so great a change was to be made, as the withholding of the seal of the covenant from the seed of believers; such a change would surely require to be authorized by a new divine command.

If any one still thinks, that Christ's requiring men to believe and be baptized, implies that infants are not to be baptized, because they cannot believe; I ask whether the same mode of interpreting Scripture would not debar infants from salvation. "He that believeth shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be condemned," is the grand principle of the New Testament. Faith is required in order to salvation as much, certainly, as in order to baptism. And this requisition furnishes as much reason for excluding infants from salvation, as for excluding them from baptism. But all Christians are united in holding, that the requisition of faith in order to salvation, cannot be applied to children. And to be consistent, they must hold, that the requisition of faith in order to baptism cannot be applied to children. The requisition most evidently has as much to do with salvation as with baptism. The two cases then are alike. Christ requires men to believe, in order to be saved. But when he requires this, he does not say, that infants are excluded from salvation, because they cannot believe. So he requires faith in order to baptism. But he does not say, that infants are excluded from baptism, because they cannot believe. Thus so far as the requisition of faith is concerned, there is no more propriety in excluding infants from baptism, than in excluding them from salvation. And if we admit

that, notwithstanding this requisition of faith, infants may be saved; we must admit, also, that they may be baptized. The requisition of faith, which is intended only for adults, proves nothing one way or the other, as to children. The question of their being baptized, or saved, must be determined on other grounds. We ask not whether they believe; for this they cannot do; but, whether there are other reasons for baptizing them, and other reasons for thinking they may be saved.

The same principle may be satisfactorily illustrated by 2 Thess. 3: 10. The Apostle says; "This we commanded, that if any one would not work, neither should he eat." But who ever understood this command as relating to children?

The command to believe and be baptized, which has now been considered, is the most plausible argument ever advanced against Infant Baptism. And, if I mistake not, our opponents rely upon it more than upon any other. But they ought well to consider, that the mode of reasoning which they adopt, would exclude all infants from salvation. And they certainly have good reason to pause, before they admit the conclusiveness of an argument, which would lead to such fearful consequences.

The import of Infant Baptism may be understood from the preceding discussion. Circumcision was the seal of God's covenant with Abraham and his offspring; that is, of his gracious design and promise respecting them. This design and promise was, in brief, that he would be their God. Circumcision signified, that such was the promise of God, - such the plan of administration he had fixed upon towards Abraham and his seed. And it manifestly implied, that there were obligations on their part, to love, worship and obey him, who promised to be their God. Thus it was a seal of God's promise to them, and of their obligations to him. But it was never intended to signify, that all to whom it was applied, were actually, at the time, intelligent worshippers and servants of God. In regard to infant children, this was impossible. But the rite did signify, that, in process of time, they would be under high obligations to worship and serve God, and that he would pursue a course

of conduct towards them, which would be suited to influence them to this. As to those, who had attained to mature understanding, and were voluntary in receiving the rite of circumcision, it signified their readiness to accept the good promised, and to perform the duties required. In them it was an indication of right feeling; a profession of piety. But it became so, not as the direct and necessary import of the rite, but from their voluntary agency in its application. So far as circumcision was concerned, this view of the subject must be admitted by all to be correct. And why not in regard to baptism? The divine economy, though circumstantially different, is the same in substance now, as before the coming of Christ, the same, most evidently, so far as relates to the connection between parents and children and the high interests which that connection involves. When this Christian rite is applied to believers, it is a seal of the new dispensation towards them. And it signifies their consent to this economy; their belief of its truths, and their readiness to receive its blessings, and comply with its obligations. But it comes to signify this, and so to be a profession of piety, not as the direct and necessary import of baptism, but from the fact, that it is applied to those, who have a voluntary agency in receiving it. Its general import, as a token of God's gracious economy, is as consistent with its being applied to children, as to men. Its particular import varies with the state and circumstances of those to whom it is applied.

Baptism by water may always be considered as signifying, that those, to whom it is applied, are the subjects of moral pollution, and need that spiritual cleansing, or purification from sin, which is effected by the Holy Spirit through the blood of Christ. When adult believers receive baptism themselves, they hereby express their belief, that they are by nature polluted with sin, and must be sanctified by the Spirit of God in order to be admitted into heaven; and they express their desire for such sanctification, and their determination to seek after it, in the diligent use of all appointed means. When we present our infant children for baptism, we express our belief, that they are the subjects of moral