with declamations; e. g. P. 77, 78. He joins wit fanaticks, in rejoicing in their new light. As Mr C. fails in language, to express his detestation o Pedo-Baptism;-so the shakers fail in either song or tunes, to celebrate their discovery that the re surrection is past; that they are now glorified saints: and, therefore, use reels, &c. without words, to express it. With them Mr. C. exclaims, "O human tradition, how hast thou biassed the 'judgment and blinded the eyes of them that should know.' V. PROPOSITION. That infants of professing parents are fit members of the visible church; and may be acknowledged such, by administering to them baptism, an initiating seal of the covenant of grace. We establish the truth of this proposition; first, from the moral relation existing between parents, and children. Relation always precedes obligation, and is of the same nature. Natural obligation springs from natural relation; moral obligation, from moral relation. These principles, I believe, are not denied. Parents, in virtue of this moral relation, are bound to use every means, both by example and precept, to train up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." And children, upon the same principle, are bound to receive and obey this instruction. Hence the divine declaration respecting Abraham, Gen. 18. 19. For I know him, that he will command bis children, and his household after him.' The existence of this relation, and the promise for the continuation of it in the chruch; was a comfortable doctrine to King Hezekiah in his ffliction. Isaiah, 38. 19. "The father to the children, shall make known thy truth.' If it be a fact, that there is such a relation between parents and children, and such privileges resulting from it, then I ask, where is the impropriety in giving children the seal of these blessings? or are Baptists prepared to say, that children shall be the heirs of these privileges, and yet be denied the seal of them. That this princi-. ple may be more fully understood, I shall make a few plain observations. 1st. That moral obligation may exist in its full force, where there is no natural relation, as is often the case between rulers and subjects, guardians and children placed under their care; but, at the same time a covenant is supposed to exist, which secures to both parties, privileges, to which each are entitled, according to the stipulations of this covenant. While this relation subsists, neither of the parties can divest themselves of the obligation or lose their title to the privileges; only by forfeiture there is a dissolution of contrac'. 2nd. That infants may be the subjects of such a covenant is evident from fact. A nation, consisting of rulers and ruled, are mutually bound to each other by covenant. But the children of citizens are entitled to all the security and protection of their parents; and this, while in a state of infancy, before they can give any consent to the national constitution or covenant. It follows, that babes are a party in a covenant, entitled to its privileges, and grow up under its obligation, when they possess no knowledge of either. Now, it is vain to stop and ask, what good does "it do these children to have them constituted members of such a nation, when they have no knowledge of its constitution or laws. Suffice it to say, that, in every age of the world, it was a fact, it was their privilege, and establishes this principle, so much hated by the Baptists, that children may possess a seal to a covenant, and have its privileges before they can have any knowledge of it.* 3rd. That a family, consisting of parents and children, is a nation in miniature, and granted by all, to be the first beginning of civil government. And it fares with a family as it does with a nation. According to the state of the nation, with respect to privileges, the state of the subjects, are good or bad. So is it with a family. If the parents are poor, so are the children, if rich, the children are born the heirs of the estate; and this is secured to the children by contract, although the parents should die intestate, and the children be infants at the time of their death. In a word, whatever is the privilege of the parents, is, in a greater or less degree, the privilege of their children also: 4th. That this moral relation existing between parents and children, is formed by God himself, as truly as he constituted the relation between kings and subjects under a theocratical government. While infants are incapable of watching over themselves in any degree, HE has appointed their parents their guardians. But, when we view this subject, and consider *I shall afterwards shew, in its proper place, that this principle is conceded by baptists, in constituting children members of a national covenant by circumcision. these principles in the church, a holy nation, a peculiar people,' they appear in all their force. It is surely granted that it is the privilege of children to have Godly professing parents, to have parents under vows to God in the church, to warn them according to the laws of his house, and teach them the worth of their own privilege, by giving them suitable religious institutions. Parents, I grant, are morally bound to this duty; but professing parents are bound, by covenant to these duties; and to these they have engaged when they affixed a seal to the covenant of grace. The doctrine of the covenant of works, establishes the truth of my assertion. Although in many respects, the relation between Adam and his posterity, is very different from that relation existing between parents and children, yet, in this they agree, that Adam was constituted an agent for his family, the human race; so that all who spring from him, partake of the effects of his agency. In like manner, parents are divinely constituted agents of their respective families. The vi. olation of the positive precept in the covenant of works by Adam, was the violation of the same by all his posterity: or had he partaken of the tree of life in a state of innocency, it would have been a seal securing to him and all his posterity, the blessings found in that covenant, although the same posterity was unborn. The reason of this was, he was, by God, appointed their foederal head, and in law they were constituted one. If a nation employ an embassador, with powers plenipotentiary, his contract is theirs; and according to the contract, the nation enjoys benefits, or receives trouble. As in the case of Adam, so also in the case of |