pistles to the Corinthians, the Galatians and the Hebrews, appears to have been to remove the objections which they were prone to entertain and to raise against the christian dispensation on the ground that it contravened and abrogated this law.

If they were thus reluctant to part with the ceremonies of this law, how much more reluctant must they have been to part with that GRAND PRINCIPLE which comprehended them and their seed in the covenant of God and entitled each to the token of that covenant. When the heavy mandate for them to do this fell from the lips of the Apostles, preceded by no warning, accompanied by no cheering consolation, or promise that any equivalent blessing should replace the privation, how piercing must it have been to their souls!

And at the same time, how entirely must it have dis appointed their expectations! Reflecting upon the past economies of religion, they saw every succeeding dispensation containing all the blessings of the prece ding, and some peculiar to itself. Reflecting upon the past ways of God towards his people, they saw that the light and rrivileges with which He had been blessing them, had been progressive, always increasing, never diminishing. From these facts, as also from numerous and explicit declarations of the prophets, they had every reason to expect not only a continuation, but a vast enlargement of their privileges under that new and last dispensation to be established by Christ himself! How great must have been their disappointment, on seeing the analogy of all past "dispensations completely contradicted, and the predictions of prophets opposed, in the ejection of their infant seed from the church and the covenant of God and their deprivation of all right to the token of that covenant!

P

Now let the inquiry again be put, would not the Jews, believing and unbelieving, have loudly complained of such conduct in the Apostles towards their children? A person must contradict every principle of reason and of nature, to deny that they would. But did they complain of any such conduct in the Apostles? No-not a whisper of complaint, on the part of either Pharisee, scribe, lawyer, or priest, with respect to this subject, is any where expressed or intimated in scripture or in history.

This silence of the Jews is full procf that the Apbstles did not act upon Baptist principles. The Jews must have been convinced that baptism had taken the place of circumcision, and they must have seen and known, that, as a substitute for that ancient rite, it was administered to believers and their seed. Beholding this, they saw the favorite principle of the Abrahamic covenant perpetuated and respected. And beholding this they were still. And on no other ground is it possible to account for their silence.

V. That the Apostles baptized the infant seed of professed believers, appears from the venner in which they spake of their children.

The opposers of infant baptism draw one of their most favorite arguments from certain appellations given to the church in the N. Testament. The holiness there ascribed to this body renders it impossible, as they argue, that the mere children of believers can be so connected with it as to be entitled to the ordinance of baptism. Yet to put those texts of scripture out of the way which appear to favor the idea that the Apostles baptized such children, they seem to have no difficulty in transferring to all the descendants of legally connected parents as strong a term as is any

where employed in scripture to denote the purity and sanctity of the gospel church.

The Apostle, 1 Cor. 7, 14, asserts that the children of parents one of whom is a believer, are holy. Accor ding to the construction put upon this passage by the opposers of infant baptisin, the holiness here meant is legitimacy, i. e. the children born of such parents, are. legitimate children. The believing party so sanctifies, the unbelieving, that their marriage becomes lawful, and, as a consequence, the children are lawful, legititimate children. All legitimate children are therefore holy, in the view of our brethren. But that children may be thus holy, or legitimate, one of the parents must be a believer, for the holiness of the child, according to the Apostle's reasoning, wholly depends upon this single circumstance. The result, therefore, is, the children of parents, both of whom are unbeliev~ ers, are illegitimate children, and no marriages are legal but those in which one of the parties at least is a believer...

This interpretation destroying itself, and rondering the Apostles reasoning absolutely ridiculous, the legal ity of a marriage not in the least depending on the existence of faith in either of the parties, or the legitimacy of children on the faith of both or either of the parents; let us proceed to inquire for the true meaning of these words.

20

Saith the Apostle in the two preceding verses :-"If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to live with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.For the unbeleiving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbeleiving wife is sanctified by the husbandı.

To understand this passage we need attend but to two points.

1. In what sense these children were holy.

2. The means of their being so.

1. In what sense were these children holy? Not in herently, for personal holiness is not communicated from parent to child. None possess this holiness but such as are born of God," and conformed to him in temper and life. John 1. 13. But they are relatively holy-holy by reason of their relation to and connection with the church of God, and comprehension by its covenant. Those, embraced by this covenant, and thereby severed from all other people, as peculiarly the Lord's, are, in the language of scripture, termed holy. On this account the Israelites of old were termed holy. And on this account are the members of the visible church thus termed at the present time, altho' many of them may be destitute of real holiness of heart.

of

The former were once thus addressed by the Lord. Ye shall be holy unto me: for I the Lord am holy, and have severed you from other people that ye should be mine. Lev. 20. 26. Those not thus severed were, by by way distinction, denominated "unclean or common." The term "holy," in contradistinction to the terms "unclean and common," expresses the state of a person or object as peculiarly the Lord's, as especially separated to his service and worship, and, as a consequence, is applied in the language of scripture, to every one severed by the covenant of God from others. To be within the comprehension of this covenant and to be relatively holy, are, in the language of scripture, one and the same. thing. The temple and all its furniture, on account

of their separation to the worship and service of God, were generally termed holy. But to call any person "holy," on any other account than that he either pos sesses vital religion, or is peculiarly severed or separated to God, is utterly hostile to the whole tenor and analogy of scripture. The original term Hagios, here translated holy, neither in scripture, nor in any Greek writer, sacred or profane, has ever been found to express the legitimacy of children.

By the holiness of these children, therefore, we can understand nothing else than their state as members of, connected with, or related to, the church of God, comprehended by its covenant and consequently sealed by its seal. On this account and on no other, agreeably to the tenor of scripture, can such children be termed holy, while destitute of inherent holiness. In this sense, and in no other, were the children of the ancient covenant people of God holy, while the children of their Heathen neighbors were accounted" unclean or common." If the root be holy so are the branches. If the root be common or unclean, so are the branches.-If a parent be relatively holy, so are the children, if unclean or common so are the children.

2. Let us inquire how these children became thus holy. To this inquiry but one answer can be given.The beleving parent sanctified the unbelieving. Had this not been the case, these children, according to the reasoning of the Apostle, would have been unclean, the opposite of holy, that is, destitute of any peculiar relation to God, or place in his church and covenant..

But here it may be asked, what is implied in the believing parent's so sanctifying the unbelieving that their children were thus holy? Something widely dif ferent from legalizing their marriage must be implied in it. Far was it from the Apostle's dgn to inform