not lay a foundation for their baptism, unless we are somewhere taught that baptism is a token or seal of this promise, and that it should be applied to the children as well as the parents;which is not the case.

The existence of such a promise itself any where in the Bible, cannot be conclusively shown.

Indeed, from the ordinary connexion which God has established between means and ends; from his command respecting the religious education of children; and from his character as a prayer-hearing God, parents may take encouragement, if faithful, to hope that their children, to some extent, at least, will be brought into the kingdom.

But this does not appear to be engaged in any covenant transaction between God and each believing parent, and ratified by baptism.

The passages which are brought in support of such a covenant, in addition to the promise already considered to Abraham, will be found, on examination, to be insufficient to prove its existence.

One of these is Deut. v. 29, "O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children forever." This is spoken of the nation collectively. It expresses a desire that the nation were, and would continue to be, a holy and obedient people, for the good of the present and. succeeding generations. In that case, their children as well as themselves would, indeed, enjoy happiness and prosperity.But it will be perceived that there is a condition implied on the part of the children as well as of the parents. The promise is not that if the parents would be obedient, the children should be of course; but if the children would be obedient too, they should also be happy. As long as the nation, parents and children together, should keep God's commandments, it would be well with them. The personal obedience of each is plainly the condition of being blessed. This, then, affords no proof of the existence of such a covenant as above described. The following passages, to which the reader is merely referred, may be explained in a similar manner, viz. Deut. vi, 2, xxviii. 2, 3, 4, and xxx. 2, 6; Ps. ciii. 17, 18, and Ex. xx. 6.

The following, viz. Deut. vii. 8, 9, and x. 15; Isaiah, xliv. 3, and lix. 21; and Jer. xxxii. 39, may be explained on the principle of the promise contained in the Abrahamick covenant,, as already illustrated.

The seed of God's servants mentioned in Ps. Ixix, 36, and

eii. 28, mean not simply the carnal seed; but the imitators of the faith of their parents, or predecessors.

Jer. xxx. 20, relates to the return from the Babylonish captivity, and therefore furnishes no proof that children stand in the same relation to the church now, as formerly.

Proverbs xx. 7, and xxii. 6, and Ps. xxxvii. 25, 26, contain a recognition of general facts, or maxims. There is wont to be a connexion between the piety and faithfulness of parents, and the piety and uprightness of their children, on a general scale, leaving room for exceptions. These are statements of the ordinary influence of a pious education upon children.But this connexion is not noticed in the form of a covenant, but rather as a matter of fact. The same principle might be extended to the instructions of a pious minister and his people, or of a pious teacher and his pupils, or his sabbath school children as to matter of fact, these means are wont to be blessed to some extent. But the subject is not put into the form of a covenant, and ratified with a seal. Neither is it in the former case. Therefore, the baptism of infants cannot be inferred therefrom.

These, together with those examined in a former part of this work, are the principal passages brought in support of the covenant promise which is supposed to exist in relation to believers and their seed; and they evidently furnish no premises from which the right of infants to baptism can be duly inferred. Even if it could be proved that God has made a covenant with believers in common to bless their immediate children, provided they are faithful, this right would not follow. Because baptism is no where said to be a token, or seal, of such a covenant, or promise, or to be designed for any such purpose.

ap.

And even if it were, it would not follow that it must be plied any further than to believers of both sexes. It is a positive institution, and the use of it is defined and limited by the very words of the institution. Were it clearly and undeniably a seal of such a promise, we might argue reasonably and conclusively, that it answers all the purposes of a seal, when applied to believers of both sexes, as truly as circumcision did when applied to the males of Abraham's family. It will not prove the right of the children to baptism to say that they are interested in the promise; for the females in Abraham's family were interested in the promise of the covenant which God made with him, as truly as the males; and yet the seal was not to be applied to them. Will it be said that it was not applicable to them? But, if simply an interest in the promise gave a right to the seal, then doubtless God would have appointed a seal which was

applicable to both sexes, provided circumcision was not; or the seal appointed would have been applied to females as far as the nature of the case would admit.

The truth of the case is, this interest in the promise did not give the right to the seal: but that which gave the right was the order of God, which expressly limited it to the males.

So in the case before us, that which gives the right to the ordinance of baptism is not the interest of the subject in the promise, but the order of God, which is expressly limited to believers of both sexes.

This application of baptism, allowing the aforesaid covenant to exist, and baptism to be the seal of it, is a sufficient confirma. tion of the promise, and we have no warrant to extend it any further.

If it be said that we are not forbidden to baptize infants, I reply, neither were the Jews forbidden to circumcise females. Besides, we are not expressly forbidden to baptize unbelievers, nor our meeting houses and bells. But will it hence do to baptize them? Surely this kind of reasoning will not do.

When the subjects of a positive rite are described, and ordered to receive it, this is a virtual and plain prohibition of its application to any other persons, or things.

In every view of the case, therefore, the argument for the baptism of infants grounded on the Abrahamick covenant, or on any covenant or promise in the Bible, fails, and ought never more to be plead.

CHAPTER XIV.

The inconsistency between the belief and practice of Pedobaptists respecting the church membership of infants, exposed.

ONE of the strongest arguments for the baptism of infants is based upon their supposed membership in the Christian church, the same as in the Jewish. The churches being the same, and the membership of infants being once established in the Jewish Church, must, it is argued, continue, unless it be expressly set aside; and, if it continue, then they should be baptized upon the ground of it.

All Pedobaptists do not plead for the continued church. membership of infants; but most of them do, and place great reliance upon it. My object, in this chapter, will be to show the inconsistency which exists between their belief and practice; and, also, to make it appear that the argument destroys itself by proving too much.

Infants are baptized, either because they are members, of, to make them members. But what becomes of them afterwards? Are they treated as members? Are they considered as brethren, saints, and the faithful in Christ Jesus? Are they considered as being in communion? No, they are not permitted to come to the Lord's Supper upon the ground of their baptism and church membership.

Yet the Lord's Supper is supposed to come in the place of the passover as truly as baptism has in the place of circumcision. And it is perfectly obvious that children ate of the passover as well as adults. It was a household right.

If, therefore, the Lord's Supper has come in its place, and children are still church members, why are they not admitted to it? The argument is as strong for their admission to communion as to baptism: yea, it is rather stronger, because females were admitted to the passover, although excluded from circumcision. If circumcision was a household right, so was the passover, still more perfectly. And if baptism has succeeded the former as still a household right; the same must be said of the Lord's Supper upon the same principle. And infants cannot

be excluded therefrom, any more than from baptism, unless their right be annulled, which cannot be reasonably pretended, if the other right is not annulled too.

It is said, indeed, "let a man examine himself, and so let him eat." But this will not exclude infants any more than the rule "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," and "if thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest," excludes them from baptism. The same plea may be made in the former case as in the latter, that the rule respects merely adults, and, therefore, does not affect the right of infants. There is not, in fact, one plea for infant baptism which may not be urged, with equal force, for infant communion. Why then is the one practice observed and the other not? Why is not the very same principle allowed to operate in both cases, when they are manifestly parallel? Here is a palpable inconsistency on the part of Pedobaptists. Infants are considered church members long enough to secure their baptism, and then refused the privileges of members. They are treated as though they were not members. No material difference is made between them and the world. They are said to be in the church, and yet not in communion. They are admitted to one gospel ordinance, and rejected from the other, when the principle adopted with regard to both is the same. They are not numbered among the brethren, or admitted into the society of Christians, till they make the same profession which is required of the unbaptized.

They are, indeed, said to be under the watch and care of the church but in what sense? Not as brethren. And to what extent are they under its watch and care? Not as deserving excommunication if not reclaimed by the ordinary process. For how could they be cast out of communion when they were never in? The watch and care, then, which are exercised over them are not materially different from what are exercised, or should be exercised, over all children and all persons, except that there is a special care to be exercised by parents over their own children and households.

Baptized children are indeed said to be within the pale of the church. But what does this mean? Are they full and complete members? No; such they cannot be, without becoming communicating members. Are they then half-way members? or one quarter of the way members? If so, where does the Bible treat of such a class of members? Seeing the inconsistency of this, will any say they are complete members, but not in communion? This is a contradiction. They cannot be complete members, without being received as brethren, and as having a right to the communion.