and from this principle is it not evident that the more solemnly the parent binds himself, and of course the more faithful he is in the use of means, especially such as prayer and religious instruction; the more favourable is the prospect, that his children will be made heirs of the grace of God?

Q. If the covenant made with Abraham was a covenant of grace, why did it not secure the salvation of all his literal seed?

A. We have already observed that there was an engagement on the part of Abraham, and so after him on that of every believing parent, as well as on the part of God. If Abraham, or any other believing parent fail of fulfilling his engagement, though he himself may be saved, the salvation of his children, on the ground of the promise, cannot be inferred from the covenant. Men may be the subjects of grace, and be finally saved, who are very imperfect. The promise does not secure the salvation of all the children of such as are merely Christians. On the other hand, though their salvatioe cannot be certainly inferred from the covenant, in those cases where parents are unfaithful, still as there are degrees in holiness, the parent may be more faithful though he fall far short of his engagements, and God may be more likely to call in his children, than if he had never taken this covenant upon himself. But this question is more summarily and conclusively answered by the Apostle: "What if some did not believe? Shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?" a

Q. If baptism take the place of circumcision, then will it not follow, that children are members of the Church, and ought to be considered as proper subjects of its discipline?

A. All that we have attempted to prove is that children are now, and were under the former dispensation, in covenant a Rom. iii. 1, 2, 3.

with their parents. There are different opinions it is well known on the question, whether children are members of the Church. We are inclined to think that the affirmative cannot be supported from the Bible. Baptism, as we understand it, is a seal or token of the engagement, into which the believing parent enters with God. The object of this engage. ment, so far as the child on whom the token is placed is concerned, is that the great Jehovah may be to him a God, and the child become one of his children. In other words, that he may become a Christian. This is what God in great mercy has promised, on condition that the parent is faithful; and we have already shown that although the parent may fall vastly short of being perfect, yet if he make this engagement in faith, and is often led by it to commend his child to God in prayer, his child will be far more likely to become the subject of these blessings, than if no such engagement were made. Now to be a member of the Church, is to be in profession, a Christian. But the object of Baptism is not to mark or designate the child as being already a Christian, but to show that his parent believes in God-has entered into covenant with him, to pray for his child and instruct him for God that he may be a Christian. If we say that infants are members of the Church, we say that the object for which they are baptized is already accomplished; whereas the nature of the covenant pre-supposes a time of trial, before even if we are faithful, we can expect it. However young a child may be who gives satisfactory evidence of faith in Christ, we do not baptize him if his parent become a believer at the same time, on account of the faith of his parent, but on account of his own. Did we believe that baptism is regeneration, it might be proper to consider baptized children, as professed Christians, and treat them as such; but so long as we view their baptism as pointing forward to their conversion, and as an important

means when viewed in all its connexions, of bringing it about, to treat them as Christians, or as members of the Church, must be manifestly absurd. This view of the subject must show us that Baptism, as it respects our children, is a solemn and important duty. The objection to which these remarks are designed as an answer, has no bearing upon the views which we have stated; still, though children are not made members of the Church by baptism, it is an important means to bring about their conversion and salvation. Can a parent, while it is within his power to do any thing, which he may have good reason to believe, will be instrumental to the salvation of his children; rest contented till it be done? Every parent that has correct views of the covenant, if he sincerely regard the future wellbeing of his children, cannot rest till he has given them up to God, and has the testimony of his own conscience, that he is endeavouring to live according to his engagements.

Q. What is the mode in which Baptism is to be adminis tered?

A. It is believed it never was the design of the Holy Spirit to represent any particular mode as essential to Baptism. It is certain that many things about the mode in which other rites are to be performed, are represented as not being essential. The posture in which the Lord's Supper is to be received, the quantity of bread or wine to be received, and many other things are of this character. With regard to the question before us, there are but two opinions which claim the attention of the inquirer.

1. That immersion is essential to baptism, and

2. That no particular mode nor any specified quantity of water is necessary to render it valid.

To show that the first of these opinions cannot be correct, we remark,

1. That there are no instances of Baptism recorded in the

Bible, in which it might not have been performed by sprinkling, pouring, or effusion. It is not impossible in the case of Philip and the Eunuch, but that after they both went down into the water, the Eunuch was baptized by pouring. Although some of the circumstances in this, as in many other cases, seem to render it probable, that Baptism was performed by immersion, such as their going down into the water, yet there are circumstances attending all these cases, which apparently militate against that opinion. It is not said in any of these cases, that the subject was put under water, unless it be inferred from the meaning of the word baptize, to which we shall attend in its proper place. Neither do we read of any change of raiment, which both convenience and health would have rendered necessary, had Baptism in these cases been performed by immersion.

2. There are many instances recorded, in which it would be difficult if not impossible, to conceive how it could have been done by immersion. Such as the Baptism of the Jailor and his household, who were baptized in the night, without leaving his house. a The same remarks are applicable to the Baptisms on the day of pentecost. After all the ingenious inventions, which have been contrived to assist the Apostles, (which by the way we have not a particle of evidence existed at that time) it seems incredible that three thousand should have been baptized by the Apostles in the city of Jerusalem, in one day.

3. The word baptize, is sometimes used by the writers of the Bible, when they could not have meant by it immersion. The burden of argument, in proof that immersion and that only is Baptism, is derived from the word baptize. Without attempting to show the meaning of the word from which the word baptize is translated, we shall pursue a different, and it

a Acts xvi. 30-38,

is believed a safer course. If it were true that the literal meaning of the word baptize were immerse, still it must be proved that it is used in the Bible in its literal sense, before any thing is done toward proving that immersion only is Baptism. The literal meaning of the word that is rendered spirit, is wind; but the effect must be seen at once, if we were to contend that it is never used in any other sense in the Bible. The important inquiry with us is, what was the meaning affixed to the word baptize, by the writers of the Bible? From some circumstances that we have already noticed, it would appear that immersion is essential to the meaning of the word baptize, and from others, it would seem impossible that the persons who were baptized, were immersed.

In the seventh chapter of mark, the word is used in circumstances which render it impossible for it to mean immersion. "And when they come from the market, except they wash (except they have baptised themselves) they eat not." From the third verse, it is undeniably evident that the washing, or baptising here mentioned, is simply a washing of the hands. "And many other things there be which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, and brazer vessels, and tables." The word rendered washings, in this passage also, is Baptisms. We can easily conceive how cups and pots in washing may be immersed; but the immersion of tables, especially for that purpose, would be more difficult. And when we remember that the word rendered tables, is literally beds, it must appear impossible that the word Baptism should have been used to mean immersion. The Apos tle Paul in giving an account of the ceremonies of the Jewish economy, observes, "Which stood in meats, and drinks, and diverse washings," (or Baptisms.) a Now when we look back to these oblations, which the Apostle calls Baptisms,

a Heb, ix. 10,