God unto thee and to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, for an everlasting possession.” (Gen. xvii. 7, 8.) These promises were made to Abraham, as “the father of all them that should believe.” The first thing here promised is, that “the Lord would be a God unto Abraham and his seed.” {27} And do not the words of Christ, when He commanded His Apostles to baptize those who should become His disciples, _convey the same idea_?—“baptizing them in, or into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”? What is this but a declaration, that the Triune Jehovah should be their God? The other part of the promise is, that “Canaan” should be their “everlasting possession.” This by St. Paul is called a “promise, that he should be the heir of the world:”—which chiefly meant, that he and his true seed should inherit Heaven. And does not St. Paul _decide the question_ as to the continuance of Abraham’s Covenant by asserting, that believers in Christ are heirs of Heaven _in virtue of this very promise made to Abraham_? “If ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Gal. iii. 29.) The Covenant being thus the same, were children not to be brought into the blessings and the bond of it, _simply because the token of it was changed_? If (as it has been often observed on this subject) the Lord had been pleased to continue the original token of the Covenant made with Abraham, and had commanded His Apostles and Ministers to circumcise, in the place of baptizing, all who should embrace His gospel, would they not have continued the practice of the Jewish Church, and have circumcised the children of all believing parents? How much rather then, when He saith, Wash; simply baptize with water;—it is my will, that this mild but significant element and emblem be henceforth exclusively used in my Church! And having been hitherto used in the admission of Gentile proselytes into the Jewish Church, it forms a connection with the Covenant made with Abraham, _more manifest_ than any new Ordinance could possibly have done. Therefore there was no need of any directions respecting the baptism of infants, as this would naturally follow upon the continuance of the Abrahamic Covenant. Nay, after all that had taken place, if Christ had not intended that the children of believers should partake of this Sacrament, as well as the parents, a prohibition to this effect would have been needed. But nothing of the kind was given. On the contrary, (to pass on for a moment to another portion of Scripture,) the very first day on which the Apostles began to execute the Commission which Christ had given them, Peter said to those who expressed a desire to become Christ’s disciples, “_The promise is unto you and to your children_.” (Acts ii. 39.) This certainly did not look like an intention of excluding children from