What we contend for is. That it is the _will of Christ_ we should _baptize_ our infant children. In proof of this we have shewn, first, that the _dictates of right reason_ require us to _benefit_ them, and consequently to _baptize_ them; as baptism is always a benefit when administered to _capable_ subjects. We come, secondly, to shew—That God has constantly approved of _this principle_, in all _preceding_ dispensations. In other words—That the _principle_ of the last argument is so far from being _weakened_ by scripture evidence, that the Lord’s _approbation_ of _it_, in his conduct towards the offspring of his professing people, in all the dispensations of true religion, is abundantly _illustrated_ and _confirmed_. Mr. B’s misapplied but favourite maxim—“Positive laws imply their negative,” has no force in the baptismal controversy, until he demonstrates, in opposition to what is advanced, that the dictates of right reason must be _smothered_, or else, that revelation countermands their influence. But to _demonstrate_ the former, in matters about which, on the supposition, scripture is silent, is no easy task. And the difficulty will be _increased_ in proportion as the sacred oracles corroborate reason’s verdict. Let us now appeal to these oracles. We appeal to that period of the church, and dispensation of grace, which extended from Adam to Noah. The inspired narrative of this long space of time is very short: on which we make the following remarks. We then assert, Whatever exhibition of grace was made to antediluvian _parents_, was constantly made to their _offspring_; and consequently whatever seals of grace were granted to the former, must equally appertain to the latter if not voluntary _rejectors_ of them. Therefore, all such parents had a _revealed_ warrant to regard their offspring as entitled to the _seals_ of the covenant, in _like manner_ as themselves, according to their capacity. For, All allow that Gen. iii. 15. contains the promulgation of gospel grace; nor are we authorised to question the interest of _children_ therein with their parents, without an express contravention. For, it were _unnatural_ for a parent to _confine_ such a _benefit_ to his own person to the exclusion of his children, who are not only parts of his family but of _himself_. To which we may add, that the phrase _thy seed_, though principally referring to the Messiah, respected Eve’s _natural seed_ as sharers in common with herself in the exhibition of mercy; and we suppose not less so than her _husband_. For this application of the phrase _thy seed_, compare Gen. xvii. 7. and Gal. iii. 16. Again,