calls them holy, and considers them fit subjects for the seal of the covenant, when one parent is a believer, the same as he formerly did, when both were believers. I say therefore, he is extending the cords of his covenant love, and giving them a greater scope, to take in the children of his people and save them. This is according to the very spirit of the Gospel. It is expansive and benevolent in its character, spreading farther and wider its blessings, and giving greater support and encouragement in parental duty. And here I must add one more declaraRomans tion of Scripture, it is this; "If the root be holy, so are the branches." Let us never think lightly of this connexion, which God has established, between the root and the branches, for He says it is holy. Let us therefore regard this connexion as God does, and treat it tenderly, as he does, not in a natural sense, merely, but in the holy sense of the Scriptures. Let us never break this holy connexion, if we would not see the branches wither and die an eternal death. God would have given us timely notice, if, in his opinion, the branches would flourish better, by being broken off from the root.

xi. 16.

16. The Jews considered infants proselytes, and Christ commanded his disciples to baptize proselytes. He commanded them to proselyte all nations, baptizing them. And this certainly means, that the proselytes, at least, should be baptized.

Esther viii. 17. Acts ii. 10. xiii. 43.

We know that the Jews made proselytes to their religion. We read of them in Scripture. And the Jews considered infants proselytes, as well as their parents. The celebrated Jewish writer, Maimonides,* says, "If an Israelite take a gentile child, or find a gentile infant, and baptize him in the name of a proselyte, behold, he is a proselyte." According to the testimony of the Jews then, they considered infants proselytes. The apostles were Jews. And Christ commanded them to proselyte and baptize. This cannot mean anything less, than that the apostles should baptize all the proselytes. And as the Jews considered infants proselytes, as well as their parents, then, the apostles, who were Jews, must understand that Christ com

*See the testimony of others under head 19.

manded them to baptize infants, as well as their parents. And indeed, it really appears, that here is a plain command for infant baptism. The meaning of every command, depends on the meaning of the words, in the circumstances in which they were spoken. And did not Christ, when he gave his apostles their commission, use words as they understood them?

17. The church to which the apostles belonged, and in which they had been educated, had, for two thousand years, put the token of the covenant upon the infants of those who professed religion.

The apostles were well acquainted with the practice of their church, in putting the token of the covenant upon her children, according to the command of God. And if he did not plainly direct them to stop this practice of the church-to withhold the token from infants, and not to put it upon them any longer-if he did not thus direct the apostles, when he changed the token of the covenant, they could have no right to withhold it from infants, or to direct the church to withhold it. And the apostles had no such direction, and they gave the church no such direction, for this plain reason, it was not their duty to Iwithhold the token of the covenant from infants-this is the case with others, it is not their duty. This is known, and felt, by many of the ministers of Christ, therefore, they never tell the church, that the token of the covenant should not be put upon their children, or that their infants should not be baptized.

But others, our brethren too, beloved in the Lord, tell the church, that their infants should not be baptized. We ask them why? And they answer, The token of the covenant is changed; circumcision is done away, and the character of the church is improved; that is, there are not so many unbelievers in it now, as there were before Christ came. These are poor excuses, indeed, my brethren-The token of the covenant is changed! There are not so many unbelievers in the church as there used to be, when the children were circumcised! I say, these are poor reasons, brethren, for withholding the token of the covenant from the children of the church.

The case is like this—A shepherd has a large, and valuable flock of sheep. He has goats, also, in his posses

sion. He has a number of under shepherds, to take care of his flock. He suffers some of the goats to go with the sheep. He tells his shepherds what mark to put upon his flock, and they obey him. The flock multiplies, and he improves their pasture. It is clothed with a richer verdure, the dews distil more abundant and enriching, and it exhales a sweeter fragrance. Now the chief shepherd, tells his under shepherds, not to use the old mark any longer, and he gives them a new one, and commands them to put that upon the flock. They take the mark, and apply it to the sheep, and also to the goats that are with them, but do not apply it to the lambs. I observe the course they take, and ask them why they do so? and they answer; "The mark is changed; and there are not so many goats in the flock as there used to be." But these answers are nothing to the purpose. They afford no excuse for neglecting to mark the lambs. The question is; Did the chief shepherd, when he changed the mark, tell you not to put it upon the lambs, as you used to do? If he had, this would settle the point. But they confess he did not. I then urge the question; How came you not to mark the lambs? Is not the mark you now have, applied to the sheep, and even some of the goats, as the other was? Is it of any higher character than the other? Could it not be as easily, and as pleasantly applied to the lambs? But the records of their master, and the history of his flock, present no answer to these questions, which justifies the shepherds, in not marking the lambs.

Now all this is a just representation of facts, that exist, in connexion with the cause of Christ. He is the chief and good shepherd of Israel, who gave his life for the sheep. He feeds his flock like a shepherd. He gathereth the lambs in his arms, and carrieth them in his bosom. His ministers are his under shepherds. Those in covenant with him, are his flock. Some of this number, at every period, have been wicked men, such as Christ will consider goats in the day of judgment. He gave his ministers command to apply the mark of circumcision to those who joined his church, his flock, or entered into covenant with him. He considered the infants of his people in covenant with him, and called them holy, and his children, and ordered them to be marked for him, and so it

was, and so it is still. But when he improved the condition of his flock, and shed new light and joy around them, he changed the mark of circumcision, for baptism; and commanded his ministers to proselyte all nations, baptizing them. And the new mark, baptism, is of no higher character than the other was. Circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith, and baptism has no higher character.

But if the Lord is a God to his people now, in a sense as high and holy as he was to Abraham and Israel—if his people are now interested in the righteousness, of faith, of which circumcision was a seal-and if God has not broken the covenant connexion between them and their children, and their children and himself, then, this covenant connexion is strong, and we have no right to break it their right to the token, or seal, of the covenant, is good, and we have no right to withhold it from them.

Hence, it clearly appears, that it must have been very plain to the apostles, and may be very plain to us, that baptism, the token or seal of God's gracious and everlasting covenant, should be applied to the infants of God's believing covenanting people. This will further appear, if we consider,

18. The apostles well knew, that God had declared, that when he should multiply, and glorify his people, their children should be as aforetime.

Their children should be as aforetime, so far as God did not direct to the contrary. Aforetime, they were included in the covenant of God with his people, and the token of the covenant belonged to them, and was applied to them, by the command of God. This was a great privilege, one which the Scriptures teach us, profited much every way. The days of the Gospel, are, especially, the season in which God multiplies and glorifies his people. And as the apostles knew, that the Scriptures did not set children aside from the privileges, and token of the covenant, although the token was changed, therefore, they must also know, that, in these respects, the children should be as aforetime. If the apostles knew these things, it must have been very plain to them, and may be to us, that baptism, the token of the covenant, should be applied to the infants of believers in covenant with God.

But this will appear still more evident, if we consider, 19. Baptism was in use before the days of our Saviour.

Although baptism was in use before, it was not called Christian baptism, till since. Just as good people existed before, but were not called Christians till since. That baptism was in use before the days of our Saviour, we have not only the testimony of many human authors, but we have the unerring testimony of the word of God. Saint Paul, speaking by inspiration of God, plainly tells us, that the Jews had (Diaphorois Baptismois)* di

John i. 25.

1 Cor. vers baptisms. And the same apostle tells us x. 2. that the Israelites were all baptized,† when they Exod. passed through the sea, on dry ground. More-. xiv. 21,22. over, the question put to John, by the priests and Levites whom the Jews sent to inquire who he was, shows that baptism was no new thing. They ask him; Why baptizest thou then if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?" It clearly appears from this question, that the priests and Levites were well acquainted with baptism. For they do not ask John, "What meanest thou by this new ceremony?" But "Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?" Baptism then was certainly in use, before the words of our text were spoken. And as our Saviour did not mention either infants, or adults, particularly, but used the word nations, which includes all ages, he could not be understood, by the apostles, to exclude any from baptism, who had before, been the subjects of it. But the apostles would naturally understand, that they should baptize adults only, or adults, and infants also, according to the practice of the church and nation to which they belonged, so far as Christ did not direct them to the contrary. If it were the former practice of their church and nation to exclude infants from baptism, they would, of course, exclude them from Christian baptism. But on the other hand, if it

* Greek Testament, Heb. ix. 10.

The Israelites took their little ones with them when they left Egypt, but whether they had any at the time of their baptism in the sea, the Scriptures do not tell us.

Dr. Lathrop's Disc., page 42.