I am sensible, indeed, that they who deny infant-baptism, suppose that the holiness of the children spoken of by the apostle in the scripture but now referred to, who descended from parents, of whom one only was a believer, implies nothing else but their being legitimate: But that does not seem to be his meaning; inasmuch as marriage is an ordinance of the law of nature, which all, without distinction, have a right to, heathens as much as Christians; and the children of the one, are as legitimate as those of the other. Therefore, there is something else intended by their being holy, namely, the same thing that is meant in those other scriptures that we but now referred to, as taken for an external relative holiness, whereby God must be supposed to have a greater regard to them than to others who are styled unclean; and, if this does not infer, as was before observed, their being internally regenerate or sanctified: yet it is not a word without an idea affixed to it: Therefore we must understand thereby, an holiness in the lowest sense of the word; as children, are said to be _an heritage of the Lord, and the fruit of the womb his reward_, Psal. cxxxvii. 7. or, it denotes the obligation they are laid under, by the privilege of their descending from believing parents, to adhere to their fathers’ God; which obligation is professed or acknowledged, when they are dedicated to him in baptism, as has been before observed; and this is the use which I would make of this account which we have of them in scripture, to prove their right to be devoted to God in this ordinance.