1

this blessing of Abraham is, that is here inten-led, appears from the next words, "That we might receive the promise of the spirit through faith;" which promise of the spirit was the principal thing contained in, and the chief substance of the covenant that God nade with him, "To be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee." This blessing of Abraham is come on the Gentiles.

To the same purpose are the apostle's words in Eph. ii. 12. At that time, ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise." And chap. iii. 6. "That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ, by the gospel." In both these texts, believing Gentiles are represented as being no more strangers from the commonwealth of Israel: but as members of the same body, as fellow-heirs of the same privileges, and partakers of the same promises with the commonwealth of Israel: But it is evident that the seed were parts and members of that commonwealth, and heirs together with their parents of the promises and privileges of it. And let it be here observed, that the apostle is here speaking of the church as a visible body, a commonwealth: he is not speaking of sincere believers, as so many particular persons, or individuals in an unconnected state; but as a visible bɔdy, a body-politic, a commonwealth : and is therefore evidently setting forth the privileges of their visible church standing. And the tenor of his argument necessarily extends the privileges of the church to the church seed; not of Jews only but of Gentiles also.

The remark, also of the apostle upon the dealing of God with Noah, in Heb. xi. 7. contain the same representation of the matter. "By faith Noah being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith." It was with

Noah that God established his covenant, when the whole world had corrupted themselves. Gen. vi. 18. He only is mentioned as a believer; yet his whole family shared great privileges by the covenant, being saved in the ark during the flood. And the apostle Peter speaks of the same thing, I. Pet. iii. 21. "The like figure whereunto, baptism, doth also now save us, (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." By baptism we securé a great privilege to our children which may be compared to the saving of Noah's family in the ark, where by they were preserved to the enjoyment of church privileges, when the rest of the world were drowned by the flood.

Thus have I collected some from among many texts, both in the old and new testament, which evidently show the visible church under the gospel, to be that very church which was established by the covenant with Abraham; which expressly represent the church seed under the gospel; to be joint heirs with their parents to the privileges of the covenant: and the texts produced from the new testament evidently show that the apostles so understood them.

It is objected that we have no instance or example of the apostle's baptizing any infants. I might for argument sake grant it for we need not any, to establish infant baptism. It is undeniably evident. that the seed were included with their parents in all former dispensations. This was the case in the first revelation of the new covenant to Adam, after the fall, when the visible church was begun with him; and his children continued members of it till Cain apostatized, and went out from the presence of the Lord. This was the case in the renewal of the covenant with Noah. And this is most expressly the case in the dispensation of the covenant to Abraham; and with all the renewals of it with his seed throughout all former ages. And as it is manifest by such a great variety of sacred texts that the church under the

gospel, is not another, but the same church; and the church-seed to frequently and expressly mentioned in the prophecies and promises contained in the writings of the former prophets, when they evidently speak of the gospel dispensation; it fully proves the divine right of infant baptism. The seed having been once included in the covenant, is a sufficient evidence that they are still in it, till our adversaries are able to produce plain and evident proof that they have been since cut off. It does not therefore properly lie upon us to prove that the right of the seed to the seal of the covenant, holds good under the gospel But it belongs to them to prove that the seed of God's covenant people has been cut off. But the sum total of the evidence they can, or even pretend to produce in the case, is, that there is no instance of any infant's being baptized by the apostles and the want of a capacity in infants for the exercise of faith.

As to the first of these arguments, that we have no example of infant baptism; I answer, We have no need of any, in order to prove the point. For when we consider the prophecies and promises of the old testament, which relate to gospel times, so expressly representing the church seed to be included in the covenant; which were so understood by the apostles, who have expressly applied them to the church under the gospel; it will appear manifest that they did baptize infants: or at least, if it could be proved that they did not, it would at the same time prove an inconsistency, and self-contradiction upon the apostles, which may not be supposed. If infants are cut off, let our opponents shew us the text that cuts them off.

And as to the example of the apostles; so far as their example is recorded, it is manifestly in favor of infant baptism. For when the Lord opened the heart of Lydia to receive the gospel, her household were baptized. Acts xvi. 15. And when the apostle preached to the jailor, he tells him, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, and thy

house. Upon which he, and all his, were straightway baptized." Acts xvi. 31, 33. I grant, it is not certain there were any infants in either of these families; but on the contrary, there might be some in both of them. And if there were infants in either of them, it is plain from the text, that they were baptized, because the whole households were baptized; which would not be true, if there remained any unbaptized children in either of them. There does

not appear to be any believers in either of these families, but Lydia and the jailor: and the baptism of their households, whether infants or adults, is represented to be on the covenant right of the heads of the families, according to the most easy and natural construction of the words: which examples considered in connexion with the representation of the promises and privileges which belong to the visible church, and church-seed, as they stand recorded both in the old and new testament, are sufficient evidence of the divine right of infant baptism.

When the right of a person, whether infant or adult, to any privilege in the visible church, is established by plain scripture testimony, although there should be no record of any example of it, it is very injurious to deprive them of the privileges to which their right thus appears. We have no example in the bible, that any woman ever partook of the Lord's supper. But who ever doubted of their right to it, for such a reason as this? And yet, there is as much sense, or rather nonsense in this argument, when applied to children, as there is when applied to women. The right of the church-seed to the seals and privileges of the covenant of God with the visible church, is so expressly declared in the prophecies and promises delivered to the church, by the former prophets, to be fulfilled under the gospel dispensation, which were so repeatedly asserted, claimed for, and applied to the church by the apostles, that it must be owned that their practice contradicted their profession and doctrine, if they denied baptism to the infant seed of believers. So much silence in the scripture

concerning the baptism of infants, is not to be thought strange of. For if there was, at that day, no dispute raised about it, there could be no occasion to make mention of it; their right being plainly asserted, there was no need to subjoin examples of it. Yet it is morally certain, that if the seed had been denied the seals of the covenant, it would have caused disputes, and raised prejudices in the minds of the Jews against the gospel. For since their seed had always been acknowledged as included in the covenant of God, from the days of Abraham down to that time; it must have been surprising, and very grievous to them, to find their seed cut off under the gospel. Such a change could not have failed of producing discontents and disputes among a people who were so zealous of the law, and of the customs of their fathers, as the believing Jews were. The silence therefore of the new testament about the baptism of infants, is so far from being an argument against it, that it is a strong and very conclusive one in favor of it. For if their seed had been cut off from the covenant under the gospel, there is the strongest pre sumption that such disputes about it would have arisen in the church, that we must necessarily have had some mention of it in some apostolical writings. How weak and ridiculous then is it, to make the silence of the scripture an argument against the baptism of infants, when its whole force is thus evidently in favor of it!

And their other argument taken from the incapa▾ city of infants to exercise faith, is full as little to the purpose. Let them first prove that the real exercise of a saving faith is necessary to our being inclu ded in the covenant of God with the visible church. Till this is proved, the want of faith in infants is no objection against their being baptized. That the exercise of true faith is necessary to our being interested in the promised blessing of eternal life, is readily granted. But is does not therefore follow that the same faith is necessary to our belonging to the visible