history of their transactions shows, as we have seen, that they did not infer any such thing.

Therefore, nothing is materially gained to the cause of Pedobaptism, by admitting that the Abrahamick covenant is the one which we are now under, and that the seal thereof is changed as above.

But, in fact, the Abrahamick covenant is distinct from the new covenant, and baptism is not a seal of either, or of any other covenant. It is a simple ordinance of the New Testament, or covenant, which is a different dispensation of the covenant of grace, both from the Sinai and the Abrahamick dispensations. The only seal of the new covenant is the blood of Christ.

Moreover, baptism is a positive institution, the nature and use of which are, accordingly, to be determined by the words which contain it-by the very authority on which it rests, as signified therein, and not by inferences drawn from a previous appointment.

There is, indeed, some similarity in the nature and use of the two ordinances; although the one does not answer all the purposes of the other, and in some respects they serve different purposes. Yet this similarity in certain respects will not determine the extent to which baptism is to be applied. We are restricted in this case by the appointment of the lawgiver, and the known practice of his inspired apostles. And these determine that the ordinance belongs only to believers of both sexes. That baptism does not answer all the purposes of circumcision, must be obvious to any one who will candidly examine the various items of the Abrahamick covenant.

Although one, or two, of the provisions of that covenant belong to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews, it does not belong to them as a whole. But circumcision had respect to it as a whole, confirming all its promises. Therefore baptism, which belongs to Gentiles as well as Jews, cannot answer all the ends of circumcision, allowing that it does some of them. And this very circumstance requires a difference in its application, and naturally limits it to believers of both sexes.

It is perfectly clear that a different use was made, at first, of baptism, from that which was made of circumcision. It was not applied to Jews in common, or promiscuously, like circumcision, nor to all the males of a man's house; but to select persons from among that circumcised people, and from among their respective families-to such only as became Christians, or believers in Jesus. Here, then, is a point in which there is a dissimilarity in the nature and design of the two institutions. We cannot therefore rightly infer the duty of infant baptism.

from any similarity which may exist in some other respects be tween them.

Thus, the various efforts which are made to make it appear that infants are included in the commission for baptism, are altogether ineffectual. It is plain, after all, that it is limited to disciples, or believers.

CHAPTER V.

Circumcision shown to be of perpetual obligation to the Jews,. and hence Baptism cannot be considered as a substitute.

Ir is a common opinion that the rite of circumcision was annulled, when the new dispensation was introduced, and that baptism was appointed in its stead. But this opinion has been. adopted without scriptural authority. The notion that baptism is a substitute for circumcision, is one of the strongest arguments. employed for the baptism of infants. If this notion therefore shall appear to be unauthorized, it will tend very much to overthrow that cause; it will, in fact, subvert its main pillar. This, then, is a point which deserves to be seriously considered.

Some may start at the idea that circumcision was never abrogated to the Jews, and think it will lead to horrible consequences. But let us patiently examine the matter.

Circumcision was certainly in full and approved use among the Jews at the commencement of our Lord's ministry, when baptism was first appointed: and yet no notice is taken of this being a substitute for that ancient rite, or of its ever being designed to be.

Circumcision continued, also, in approved use during the whole of our Lord's ministry, in which he was continually making and baptizing disciples. And it was in use when the final commission was given to teach and baptize all nations; and yet all is silent on the subject of its abrogation, or discontinuance, and of the appointment of baptism in its stead, as a seal of the same covenant.

It was, moreover, in use on the memorable day of Pentecost; and yet Peter said. "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins," without saying a word about the new seal's coming in the place of the old: he never intimated that they were no longer to circumcise their children.

It was in use when Peter had the vision respecting the calling of the Gentiles, and actually went (being convinced and overpowered by a miraculous vision, and by the express order

of God) to Cornelius and his friends, for the purpose of instructing them in the things of the gospel; and yet there is not even a suggestion respecting the change of the seals, and the discontinuance of circumcision to the Jews.

It was in use when the brethren went up from the church at Antioch to Jerusalem, on the question about circumcising the Gentiles, to inquire whether that church had given direction to the teachers who came out from them to impose circumcision and the Mosaick rites on the Gentiles; which must have been seventeen years after the conversion of Paul, as appears from his epistle to the Galatians; and yet there is not a word said about the supposed substitution, or of the abolition of circumcision among the Jews: when if any such thing had taken place, and was known, the occasion required that it should be stated, and the principle of substitution defended; and when the bare statement of it would have for ever put to silence the question respecting the circumcision of the Gentiles.

All which would have been required was to state that the Lord Jesus had abrogated the rite of circumcision, and appointed baptism as a new seal of the same covenant—a seal that was common to all nations, and one which had actually been in use a number of years, both among Jews and Gentiles; and hence that there was no necessity for circumcising the Gentiles; yea, that the idea was palpably absurd. Moreover, that it was both unnecessary and absurd to continue circumcision among the Jews themselves, seeing they were, from the very first, in possession of the new seal. This, I say, would have been all which was required to terminate this dispute and silence the Judaizers.

Or, at most, it would have been sufficient to say, that although circumcision was permitted to the Jews, notwithstanding it had become obsolete, on account of their prejudices and strenuous adherence to their ancient usages; and notwithstanding a new seal or token of the covenant had been introduced; it was perfectly unnecessary and unwarrantable to impose circumcision on the Gentiles, who had never been under the Mosaick law, and who, by the express appointment of Jesus Christ, were likewise in possession of the new seal.

Now I say that what is contained in the one or the other of these statements, would have been amply sufficient to settle that whole controversy at once, and for ever.

And had the principle been true, that circumcision was disannulled and baptism substituted in its room, the occasion imperi-ously demanded such an explanation and disclosure. To neglect this argument was not only to act inconsistently, and even dishonestly, in keeping back a plain and important principle which

most intimately respected the peace and welfare of the church; but, to lay aside the exercise of common sense. Who can suppose, when so much interest was taken in the question, and when so many insisted that the Gentiles should be circumcised and keep the law; and when there was so much argument and disputing in that venerable assembly of apostles, elders and brethren, that a profound silence would have been observed respecting a principle, which, if true, would have put an immediate end to the controversy. An expert Pedobaptist would have decided the cause in two minutes; yea, in one; so that no one could have had a face to urge the imposition of circumcision on the Gentiles.

And yet no one appears to have thought of this overpowering argument. No intimation is given that the supposed change had taken place in the seals, and that circumcision was abolished to the Jews. Here, I say, in the very place, and on the very occasion, when this subject could not, from the nature of the circumstances, have failed to be discussed and plainly stated, if it had been real, not a tittle is uttered. What then is the legitimate conclusion? It is, that the sentiment that baptism had taken the place of circumcision, and that circumcision was no longer obligatory on the Jews, was not known, and was not true.

After the church at Jerusalem had expressly denied giving the teachers in question any direction to impose circumcision on the Gentiles, and much had been said in the council for and against the measure, an inspired decree was delivered by the apostles, in which the Gentiles were expressly exempted from the practice of circumcision, and the ceremonial rites of the law; which decree implies, at least, that the Jews considered themselves bound to continue this institution.

It is conceded that they appear generally to have thought that the rites of Moses were also obligatory; which were, in reality, abrogated by the death of Christ, and therefore not binding, although their use was tolerated for a season. This matter,

probably, was not fully cleared up, till Paul wrote the epistle to the Hebrews, and till the first covenant, "which waxed old and was ready to vanish away, was completely broken in the final destruction of Jerusalem, and the dispersion of the nation. This circumstance, however, does not materially affect the argument.

Their conceiving that the observance of the ancient rites appointed by Moses was necessary, as well as circumcision, is no evidence that they knew any thing about this supposed change in the seals; nor is it any evidence that circumcision and these rites are to be placed on the same footing, so that if