ness of change, or from the secret, though unavowed wish, to obtain a reputation for unusual candor.

Baptists and pædobaptists ought surely to yield to each other the claim of mutual sincerity. The refusal of this, while it springs from that self-sufficient confidence in our own judgment, which questions the possibility of others not seeing as we see, is, at the same time, highly inconsistent with the charity before referred to, "which thinketh no evil." And whilst the suspicion itself harbored in the mind, is a violation of the Saviour's law of love; the expression of such suspicion, in words or in conduct, tends to provoke a temper not less opposed to the spirit of that law, the passion of proud resentment and indignant disdain. Surely fellow-christians know, how little need there is to stir one another's corruption. They sin deeply against Christ when they do so. And all expressions of contempt and bitterness have this effect, as well as the insinuated suspicion of insincerity. The whole of such treatment, besides, has the tendency to frustrate the very end which, in all our discussions, ought to be kept in view for its effect is, to shut the eyes against the light of truth, and to summon up into action every principle that can resist conviction. "No doubt ye are the people, and wisdom shall die with yon; but I have understanding as well as you, I am not inferior to you,"*-is the language which all such treatment, and especially the display of self-sufficiency and scoru, naturally prompts us, with a return of similar feelings, to employ. And there can be no state of mind more unfavorable than this to the discovery and reception of truth.

Thinking ourselves right, and thinking those who dif fer from us wrong, are expressions of equivalent import : and if we feel the spirit of genuine brotherly love, we cannot but be desirous that our fellow-christians should discern and relinquish what are, in our apprehension, their errors. But let us beware of putting any thing in the room of CHRIST. Let us beware of refusing to acknowledge, in the character of "brethren beloved," any who give evidence that "Christ has received them." To a believer's mind, there is something inexpressibly awful, in the idea of his affections being confined within narrower limits than the love of Jesus;-of any consideration being a bar against admission into his heart, that does not exclude from the * Job xii. 2, 3.

heart of his Divine Master;-of any being refused a part in his prayer for the household of faith, who are subjects of the Saviour's intercession within the vail!

Pitiably dreary must be the mind of that man, who can look round on the wide world, and count his dozen or his score, whom alone he can salute as brethren, or expect to accompany to heaven!-Far from me and from my Christian friends be that self-sufficient bigotry, which freezes the fountain of love, and keeps the heart cold under the melting beams of the sun of righteousness !— While we seek the Spirit of Christ for the discernment of truth and duty, and for enabling us, meekly, but firmly, to adhere to what we deem his revealed will; let us, on the point before us, and on other similar particulars, bear with diversity of judgment in those who "hold the the head," and who give evidence, in their general character, that they do not resist or trifle with the authority of the same Lord-" both theirs and ours."

"Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ IN SINCERITY!"-whose love to him is not the faithless profession of lying lips, nor the lukewarm fickleness of a heart divided between him and the world,but unfeigned, supreme, and constant ;-regarding its object, in his true character, as the Divine and only Saviour; and evincing its reality by a life of holy obedience and unreserved submission to his will, by a desire to know and to follow, in every thing, the light of his word!

Under the influence of such feelings as these, I desire to pursue the present discussion. I shall divide my argument into three general heads, and shall allot to each a distinct section :

I. The divinely instituted practice, previously to the New Testament dispensation, and the absence of all evidence authorizing a departure from that practice under it.

II. Evidence of the fact, that, instead of such departure being authorized, the children of converts to the faith of the gospel were actually baptized along with their parents, in the time of the apostles :

III. The important truths and duties which the baptism of infants exhibits, and impresses upon our minds; and the perfect consistency of the administration of this ordinance to them with all that the Bible teaches us respecting them, as subjects of salvation, and of the kingdom of heaven.

SECTION I.

In this section, we are to consider THE DIVINELY IN

STITUTED PRACTICE PREVIOUSLY TO THE NEW TESTAMENT DISPENSATION, AND THE ABSENCE OF ALL EVIDENCE AUTHORIZING A DEPARTURE FROM THIS PRACTICE UNDER

IT.

We state our argument thus :-Before the coming of Christ, the covenant of grace had been revealed; and under that covenant there existed a divinely instituted connection between children and their parents; the sign and seal of the blessings of the covenant was, by divine appointment, administered to children; and there can be produced no satisfactory evidence of this connection having been done away.

It is not my purpose to enter very largely into the wide field which these propositions, directly and indirectly, embrace. I shall endeavor, as briefly as I can, to establish the following points :-1. That the covenant of promise made by God with Abraham was, in substance, the new covenant,—the covenant of grace,-the same covenant which, under a fuller, and clearer, and simpler discovery of it, forms now the basis of the Christian church: -and, 2. That the ordinance of circumcision, was connected with the Abrahamic covenant, in this view of it.

1. Of the first of these two propositions, that the covenant made with Abraham was the gospel covenant, the proof is, or ought to be, very short. It is the plain and positive declaration of an inspired apostle. The reader will find it in the third chapter of the Epistle to the Gala

tians, the 17th and 18th verses :— "And this I say, that the covenant which was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of God of no effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise."-I have never, I confess, been able to fancy to myself anything plainer than this; and though much has been said and written calculated to involve the subject in mystery, here it stands as plain as ever. The covenant

spoken of in these words was not the law, or Sinatic covenant; for it existed four hundred and thirty years before it, and was not at all disannulled or set aside by it :—it was a covenant of promise, as opposed, in the apostle's reasoning, to anything resting on the conditions of law: -it was "confirmed before of God in Christ,"-an expression which, translate it as you will, can be naturally applied to no other covenant but one-and believers in Christ, under the New Testament dispensation, are declared, in the concluding verse of the same chapter, to be "heirs according to the promise" of that covenant. Take the three expressions, in the 16th, the 18th, and the 29th verses in connection, (for there is nothing in the intermediate statement and reasonings to disjoin them, but only links that bring them together) and this will be strikingly apparent :-"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made :"-" If the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise:"-" And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."Heirs of what? Of the inheritance promised, in the covenant, to Abraham and his seed. The covenant, therefore, contained the promise of the heavenly or eternal inheritance. But it contained no such thing, except as couched under the promise of the earthly, the temporal, the typical inheritance. Both the earthly and the heavenly, then, were the subjects of promise; and of both alike it is affirmed, that they were obtained and held, not by law, but by faith in the promise. Had it been otherwise, the type would have failed in one of the most important and interesting points of resemblance. The same

lesson is taught with no less plainness and decision, in Rom. iv. 13, 14. "For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousnes of Faith. For if they who are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect."-It is needless to enlarge on the particular phrase here used, "the promise that he should be the heir of the world." It holds the same place in the reasoning in this passage, that the simpler designation "the inheritance" does, in the epistle to the Galatians. It will be admitted to include the promise of the earthly Canaan;-for the literal terms of the covenant specified it, and it alone; and it were strange if the inheritance specifically mentioned in the terms of the covenant, should not be meant at all when the promise of the covenant is spoken of: and there can be as little doubt that in the apostle's reasoning the heavenly inheritance is assumed to be also included, since it is respecting it that his inferences and conclusions are drawn. The covenant, then, which was "confirmed of God in Christ," which preceded the law by 430 years, and was entirely independent of it,-which was founded in free promise, in opposition to legal conditions,→ and which contained amongst its promises that of the heavenly inheritance, of which New Testament believers are heirs; this covenant must be in substance the same with the gospel, or the covenant of grace.

2. Our second proposition, and one of primary impor tance in the present discussion, is, that the rite of circumcision was connected with this covenant, as a covenant of spiritual blessings. I have dwelt the more briefly on the first, because the discussion of the second will serve further to illustrate and confirm it.

This second proposition appears to me as evident, as the terms of a plain historical narrative can make it. The following is the account of the matter in the book of Genesis:-"And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect. And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly. And Abram fell on his face and God talked with him, saying, As for me,

be