ing of having Abraham's God for their God......If our children are to be considered as under the curse, this may be viewed rather as being a moderate expression of disgust, at a practice so preposterous and injurious to the cause of truth, as that of baptizing them. If our children are not Christ's; if they are not heirs according to the promise; if God has not prepared for them a city; if they are in the state of nature, in the wild olive tree, condemned and lying under the curse; God would, indeed, according to the apostle to the Hebrews, be ashamed to be called their God. But then, how deeply is he dishonored, by having the seal of his promise, and the distinguishing mark of his heritage put upon them? How is his holy name profaned by a practice so dark and palpably absurd.

Ninthly. Though our author says, “baptized persons, previously to their taking, personally, "the vows of the covenant upon them, are nei"ther entitled to the privileges, nor subject to "the discipline of the church;" yet he attempts to shew some advantage in their standing as the children of the church. But we remark that he has failed in the attempt.

It is offered in favor of baptized persons, that God has made a promise, or proposal, to be a God to them. And is it peculiar to baptized persons, that God has proposed to them to be their God? Has not God made a promise, such an one as may be called a proposal, to many persons, to be a God to them, who are not, in our author's sense, the childen of the covenant?

Again, says our author," The parents, as individuals, have solemnly given them up to God, " and engaged to bring them up for him in holy "nurture and admonition.".....And have not the parents of the Baptist churches also done this? That this engagement is often solemnly made,

and its obligations deeply felt, by believing parents of every denomination, we have no reason to doubt.

Further, we are told, that "by their covenant"vows parents are sacredly bound, believingly "to trust in the promise of God respecting their "children." Here, it must be remembered, that the promise which parents are to trust in, is the conditional promise, or proposal, made to them on the ground of their own faith and uprightness; for the unconditional promise is made vaguely to the church, and goes no farther than "to give "such a measure of grace and faith as shall preserve, in the line of the church, or some part "of the church, a righteous seed on the earth." And therefore this yea and amen promise can never be taken up by any one, in a personal or individual capacity, in relation either to himself or to his children. I hope that some among us, and I am persuaded that many among the Baptists, in the exercise of trust in God, relative both to themselves and to their children, go infinitely farther than such a rotten ground, as is laid down for our faith in these discourses

66

To this it is added, "Parents are sacredly bound, daily to bear them on their hearts at "the throne of grace, praying with and for them." And do not our Baptist brethren feel themselves bound to do this? We must have but little acquaintance with the devout names among this people, not to know that their children to them, as ours to us, are near their hearts in a daily remembrance at the Throne of Grace.

Moreover, it is urged in favor of baptized children, that their parents are bound "faith

fully to instruct them, as they become capa"ble of receiving instruction, in the doctrine and "precepts of the Gospel; vigilantly to restrain "them from vice, and guard them from error;

"perseveringly to use with them their parental influence and authority, as occasion may require, that they may reverence the institutions “of religion, and regularly attend, at the most proper place, the public worship of God, and "such other means of religious instruction, as may, with propriety and convenience, be at"tended; and, in a word, so to command their children, and their household, after them, that they shall keep the way of the Lord to do justice "and judgment; and that God may bring upon "them all the blessings of his covenant." And do baptized children only enjoy these advantages? Are not Baptist parents solicitous also for the spiritual welfare of their families? And do they not know, and have they not experienced, as well as we, that, ordinarily, a divine blessing attends faithful labors, for the good instruction and proper regulation of children and youth?

And finally, our author says, "The church also, as a body, are bound under a solemn engagement respecting all the children of the "church. They have solemnly covenanted with

God, and with each other, to exercise mutual "watchfulness, and to reciprocate every faithful " and brotherly office. They are engaged parti"cularly to watch over each other in respect to "the duty which they severally owe to their "children; and in an affectionate and christian "manner to offer such advice, admonition and "reproof as occasion may require, and wisdom "direct; and on the ground of God's gracious promise to the church, earnestly to pray with"out ceasing, that the Spirit of the Lord may be poured out upon them, and his blessing upon • their offspring.'

And does our author suppose that this distinguishes our children from the children of Baptists? It certainly does not......In some of their

churches, in which they have an explicit covenant, they have an article to this import; and we observe that our author's style here agrees remarkably with their manner of wording an article to this effect.....There is not in the above a word that a Baptist would object to, except the phrase, children of the church. And he would have. no objection to this, understood in our author's sense; not meaning that they are a part of the church; but that they are the children of the church members...... After denying the essential and distinguishing things which have been plead for in favor of baptized children, our author has labored hard to find something to substitute in their place; but it is manifest that he has failed in the attempt in every instance.

Our author, after all the boldness and airs of confidence, with which he takes the fatal ground of his discourses; in his letters to Dr. Baldwin he comes near to an acknowledgment, that his ground is somewhat doubtful.......He says, "But "here, Sir, I take leave to premise, that rightly "to understand the provision of the covenant "is unquestionably of vast importance to all; "and the question respecting it, instead of being "treated as a matter of party-concern, can never "be considered with too much seriousness and "attention.

Respecting this question, we know there are "different opinions, even among Pædo-Baptists. "But it is particularly to be observed, that the "main subject in dispute, between us and you, "does not depend upon this point. Those of my "brethren, who differ from me with respect to "the import of the covenant, are nevertheless

upon strong ground, for the support of the doc"trine and practice of Infant Baptism........For if "God have been pleased to institute, as certainly "he has, that the token of the covenant should

4

"be applied to the infant seed of the church; "then whether we rightly understand the pur

port of the institution or not, it is undoubtedly - our duty, and our privilege, sacredly to observe it.

"Is Infant Baptism, or the application of the "token and seal of the covenant to the infant "seed of the church, of divine institution? is on "question; and what is the true import and pro

fit of it? is distinctly another. Whatever di "ferences of opinion may obtain with respect to "this latter question, they do not essentially af"fect the former. And in our dispute with you, "it is not necessarily incumbent on us to shew "the import, either of the promise respecting children, or of the application to them of the seal, but only to shew, as has been abundantly "done, that such an application is of divine in"stitution.

"These observations I have thought proper "to premise, as you and your brethren have "shewn a disposition to avail yourselves of so "differences of opinion among us, respecting the provisions of the covenant, and even to hold a language, as if it were incumbent on us to shew "what is the import of Infant Baptism, in order "to prove its obligations."

I have thought proper to quote these premises from our author, as they are evidently subversive of the first grounds of the Protestant faith, viz. That it is essentially requisite, in the true worship of God, that we understand the nature and import of our transactions.

Notwithstanding our author's assertion to the contrary, I take leave to say, that the matter respecting the meaning and import of Infant Baptism is the main point in dispute between us and the Baptists.....The modes, rites and ceremonies of worship, disconnected from their true meaning