dition of baptism is required, as infants are not capable of. The filth of their flesh may be put away: But how shall they answer the good conscience?' But it should be observed, that the answer of a good conscience is made the condition of salvation: Not of baptism. He might therefore rather have said, such a condition of salvation is requir ed as infants are not capable of. This is a condition of salvation and baptism too in adults, but of neither in infants, who are not yet moral agents. The Apostle says, Circumcision is that of the heart; but surely he did not mean that Jews were incapable of the fleshly circumcision, until they were capable of professing the circumcision of the heart. Baptism, which is externally the putiing away the filth of the flesh, signifies our obligation to answer a good conscience toward God. This obligation immediately takes place with respect to all, who are moral agents, and with respect to infants, when they become such. Here is then no argument against the baptism of infants.

Let us see if there be not a plain argument for it. The Apostle is here speaking

of the preservation of Noah and his family in the flood by means of the ark. The Apostle to the Hebrews says, By faith, Noah, prepared an ark to the saving of his house. It was by Noah's faith, that his family was brought into the ark, and preserved in the flood. The like figure whereunto, even baptism, doth now save us. Where is the likeness? Plainly here. As Noah by faith prepared an ark, by which his house was saved; so the faith of the christian parent brings his family within the privileges of the covenant. Salvation came to Zaccheus' house, in consequence of his believing. They enjoyed some special privileges on account of his faith.

4. We read, Acts viii. 5, that when the Samaritans believed Philip, preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, they were baptized both men and women. Upon this our author observes,' The history is so particular as to mention both men and women, but there stops.-Had the sacred historian been a little more explicit and said, men, women and children, if the fact were really

so; it would have prevented much doubt and controversy.'

In answer to this, it is sufficient to say; as the seal of the covenant under former dispensations had been affixed only to males, so there was good reason, why the historian should be so particular, as to mention both men and women, i. e. males and females, (for these terms are in scripture applied to persons of all ages) that it might appear, that the covenant-seal was, for the future, to be affixed to persons of both sexes. But as the seal had always been applied to children, there was no occasion for his being so explicit, as to say, men, women and children, if the fact were really so; for children's right to the covenant token had not then been made a question; and they who knew the immemorial and universal usage of admitting Jewish infants by circumcision, and the infants of Gentile proselytes by baptism, did not need to be instructed, that infants were entitled to baptism under the christian dispensation. They must naturally suppose it, unless expressly told the contrary.

5. It is urged by some, that Jesus Christ, who came to be our example, was baptized at adult age, and that we ought to imitate him herein.'

But his example is no more an argument against infant baptism, than against all baptism under the age of thirty years; for this was his age, when he was baptized, though he was certainly capable of understanding the nature of baptism before he was twelve. Do our brethren think, that all are bound, in imitation of Christ, to live, unbaptized, twenty years after they arrive to the age of understanding?

The objection before us is founded in the supposition, that the baptism which Christ received, was the same, in its nature and design, with that which he himself afterwards appointed. If it was a different thing, no argument can be drawn from it in the present question. If it was the same, then it at once removes the principal objection. against the baptism of infants, taken from their incapacity for faith and repentance. For Jesus was as incapable of faith in a me

diator and repentance of sin, as infants are; though from a different cause.

But, as I have before shewn, Christ's baptism was his public inauguration into his ministry, and therefore is impertinently adduced to disprove the baptism of infants. When we are asked, why Christ was not baptized in his infancy, it is sufficient to answer, because he did not take on him his public maistry in his infancy. To argue, that because Christ was publicly consecrated to his priesthood at the age of thirty years, therefore none should be given to God by baptism in their childhood, is an incon clusive way of reasoning.

in use.

Let it, however be observed, that though he was not baptized in infancy, yet he was dedicated to God, by such rites as were then He was circumcised on the eighth day; and on the fortieth day he was brought by his parents into the temple, and there presented to God, according to the law, which required, that every first born male should be holy to the Lord. This example shews, that parents ought publicly to dedicate their children to God in his appointed