wickedness of his life and the corruptness of his principles, that he had no faith in any rational sense, and never consented to the baptismal obligations, but was influenced only by carnal views. The man afterward comes to repentance, confesses his hypocrisy in this affair, and owns he had no religious views in the whole transaction. He now gives satisfactory proofs, that he is become a real penitent and believer. Ought this person to be rebaptized? Every one will say, no; because he has been baptized, and his baptism will save him, as he has now the answer of a good conscience toward God. When Simon the sorcerer, who had been' baptized by Philip, discovered the vile hypocrisy of his heart, Peter directs him to repent, that his sin might be forgiven; but says nothing of his being baptized again : Whereas he says to the unbaptized Jews, Repent, and be baptized for the remission of sins. But there is just the same reason, why this hypocrite should be baptized again upon his repentance, as why the infant should; because he no more had faith before baptism, and no more consented to any

religious obligation, when he was baptized, than an infant. If a profession of repentance is all that is necessary to our receiving this baptized hypocrite, a profession of faith and obedience, at adult age, is all that is necessary to our receiving one baptized in childhood. So that rebaptization is unwarrantable and sinful even upon the principles of our brethren themselves; and much more upon supposition of infants right to baptism, which, I think, has been abundantly proved. Further,

3. If children are the proper subjects of baptism, then it is the indispensable duty of parents to present them to God in this ordinance, and there must be an inexcusable neglect in those parents, who, though convinced of their children's right to baptism, delay to procure it for them.

Some will say perhaps, Though we dispute not their right to it, yet it appears to us to be a matter of very little consequence.'

But certainly it is a matter of great consequence, that you comply with a divine institution. He that breaks the least com

mand shall be called least in the kingdom of

heaven.

say,

Perhaps you will 'We can't suppose the happiness of our children at all depends upon their baptism, since it is a thing out of their power.' Be it so: Yet if it be a duty incumbent on you to bring them to baptism,. your happiness may depend on your compliance with this as well as any other duty. But how are you sure that their welfare no way depends upon it? Their welfare much depends on their being religiously educated-their education will chiefly lie with youby their baptism you engage to give them at religious education-and if your bringing. yourselves under public solemn obligations, will be any motive with you to educate them religiously, then their welfare, in some degree, depends on their baptism. You will say, 'You can do your duty as well without such a promise as with it.' With equal reason might you say, you can live a religious life without ever making a profession of religion, as well as if you did. But God has required you to make a profession, because this will be a proper motive and in

ducement to you to live a religious life; it is a suitable means of strengthening your obligations and keeping them in your remembrance. And your dedicating your children to God in baptism is founded on the same reason. It is a promise which you take on yourselves, and a means of reminding you of your obligations, to educate them religiously. And this will be an argument, which you may use to good advantage in your addresses to them.

With respect to unbaptized infants, we may be assured, God will do them no wrong. But if he has made their baptism a condition of the bestowment of some undeserved favours, who can say, this is unjust? It would be presumption to assert, that all who die unbaptized are lost. God's tender mercies are over all his works. But the promise is to believers, and their children. should we suppose, that the baptized infants of believers have some advantages above other infants in another state, this could not be called absurd: For it is certainly a part of the scheme of God's moral government, that some should be benefited by the piety

And

of others.

All intercession is founded in

this principle. You doubtless sometimes pray for your infant children. If you see them in danger of death, you pray, not only that their lives may, be spared, but also that their souls might be saved. But why do you pray for them if you imagine no good can redound to them from your faith and piety? How often did Christ exercise his healing mercy toward the sick on account of the faith of others? How often did he grant cures to children upon the earnest pe titions of their parents? It would then be extremely rash to conclude, your infants cannot be benefited by your dedicating them to God. Those believers, who brought infants to our Saviour, that he should bless them and pray for them, entertained another sentiment. They thought the good of these children, in some measure, depended on their bringing them to Christ. And Christ commended their piety, and directed others to do likewise.

Some perhaps will say, 'We believe that infants are subjects of baptism, but we question our own right to give them up to God