: which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised and my covenant shall be in your flesh, for an everlasting covenant. And the uncircumcised man-child, whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my coven înt." I have given you, my dear Friend, this complete view, of the covenant made with Abraham, in order that you may examine it, and see if you can possibly make out from it, a command of Jesus Christ to baptize either infants or adults. As strange as it may appear, this is the very ground on which infant baptism rests. Ad If this assertion needed proof, I have only to request you to turn to Dr. Spring's charge delivered to the young gentlemen lately ordained at Salem; and you will see the sentiment in its entire form. dressing these missionaries, he says, "If God shall succeed and bless your labours of love among the heathen, in multiplying hopeful converts, you will establish churches, break to them the bread of life, and apply the seals of the covenant TO THE CHILDREN AND DOMESTICs of believers, agreeably to the PRACTICE OF ABRAHAM the father of the faithful, and the subsequent friends of truth, who tread in his steps."* This is carrying the subject completely to its source. Abraham's circumcising Ishmael and his servants, and not the command of Jesus Christ, is the ground on which these young missionaries are sent to India, to baptize the children and domestics of Hindoo converts! As by the very terms of the charge, these children and domestics are not supposed to be believers, I would seriously ask, in what light they are to be looked upon when baptized? Are they in consequence of this act to be considered as christians, or only as baptized pagans? They will doubtless belong to one or the other of these classes. If any thing like the above paragraph in Dr. Spring's charge, can be found in the Saviour's direc tions to his disciples, or in Paul's epistles to Timothy and Titus, or indeed in any other part of the New Testament, then will we acknowledge the sentiment to be correct. But if neither Christ, nor his apostles have ever delivered any such sentiment, we conclude, that every inquiring, conscientious christian, will be justified in rejecting it. a very We should rather think the Doctor had imposed difficult task upon his young friends, in order to keep his charge. For although Hindoo babes can make no more resistance than other babes, yet we should think it quite likely, that their old, sturdy domestics, might not be so willing to resign cast, merely because their masters had seen fit to change their religion. It is not because Christ has given no command to baptize, that this provision in the covenant of circumcision is recurred to; for on this subject, his directions are clear and decisive. But, probably, the New Testament institution is thought to be less propitious to babes, as they are not named in Christ's commission, nor, as we believe, included. : Our Pædobaptist brethren tell us, the church is still under this Abrahamic covenant; and therefore, children ought to have the seal applied to them and that baptism now seals the same covenant, which was formerly sealed by circumcision. But when we demand the authority, by which they make this alteration, we get no direct answer. Sometimes we are told, that Christ's taking little children into his arms, and blessing them, and saying of such is the kingdom of heaven, was recognizing their covenant right to baptism but it has been shown with so much clearness, that Christ did not baptize them, nor say a word about their baptism, that this is now pretty generally given up. The plea most depended upon, is, that they once had a right to the seal of the covenant, and this right, say they, has never been abrogated; therefore, they ought now to be baptized. : But is not this reasoning at a very extraordinary rate! To argue, that a command to circumcise, is a command to baptize, is a mode of reasoning never applied to any other case. But this is not all; that law was explicit. Thou shalt circumcise every MANCHILD, born in thy house, or bought with thy money. But does this authorise the baptism of both males and females? A very extraordinary conclusion indeed! Furthermore, that law required that the child should, be circumcised on the eighth day. It could not lawfully be done before, nor might it be omitted on any pretence whatever, where it was possible. But our brethren will baptize either sex, on the very day they are born; or, without the least consciousness of blame, omit it until weeks afterwards. What authority can we suppose a law to have, which is сараble of such management? Has the all-wise Lawgiver left such a discretionary power to his creatures, as thus to change and alter his positive institutions, to suit their own convenience? That these two institutions are totally distinct, and not at all dependent upon each other, the scriptures furnish, to my mind, the most clear and satisfactory evidence. It would not comport with my present design, to enter into a lengthy discussion of the subject. I shall therefore content myself, with only adducing two or three facts recorded by the apostles, which have served fully to confirm my mind in the foregoing statement; and I doubt not, if you examine them with candour, they will appear to you in the same light. Permit me then, my dear friend, to request you to read with care, the 15th chapter of Acts. Here you will perceive, that a young church had been gathered at Antioch, chiefly composed of Gentile converts. Probably for a time they enjoyed peace; "but certain men which went down from Judea, taught the brethren, and said, except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved." This introduced a very serious difficulty. After labouring without effect, to adjust the matter, it was finally determined, that Paul and Barnabas should go up to Jerusalem, and refer the question to the apostles and elders; and obtain their opinion upon the subject. When the council had come together, the delegates from the church at Antioch, gave a particular account of the good word of God which had been in that city, and of the difficulties introduced among them by the brethren from Judea. The question, as stated by Paul and Barnabas, occasioned considerable disputing among the apostles and elders. But we have only a part of what was offered by Peter and James, together with the final result, handed down to us. In speaking to the case, Peter observed, that God had given the same spirit to these Gentile converts, as unto them; "and put no difference, (saith he) between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith." Evidently disapproving of the conduct of his Jewish brethren, he adds: "Now therefore why tempt ye God, to PUT A YOKE upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?" Here we also see, in what light this apos tle viewed circumcision: i. e. as an insupportable yoke. After some observations made by Paul and Barnabas, in confirmation of what Peter had said, James spoke to the same effect. In the course of his remarks he observed, that what had taken place at Antioch, was but the fulfilment of what the prophets had said respecting the conversion of the Gentiles; and concluded by offering the following motion: "Wherefore, my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles have turned unto God; but that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollution of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood." This motion was adopted by the council; and chosen brethren sent with Paul and Barnabas to confirm the same things by mouth. Thus by the unanimous voice of a council, comprising most, if not all the apostles and elders of the whole christian church, and by the approbation of the "HOLY GHOST," we see circumcision put down, and no SUBSTITUTE proposed in its room! In this whole account there is not the most distant hint, that baptism was to be practised in the room of circumcision! If these apostles and elders had understood the subject as our Pædobaptist brethren do, is it not perfectly unaccountable, that they should not have mentioned it on this perplexing occasion? To me, I confess, the supposition is too unreasonable to be admitted.Had they but simply made the statement which our brethren constantly make in arguing with us, it would at once have put an end to the dispute in that church, and have prevented any on the subject in future; for we all consent to submit to apostolic decision. In the 21st chapter of the Acts, there is a case stated still plainer, if possible, than the one we have been considering, (see verses 18-22,) when Paul made his last visit to Jerusalem. The day after his arrival, he went in unto James, and all the elders were present. Before these, he rehearsed what wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles, by his ministry. "And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord." But one of them immediately remarked, "Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of the Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law and they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles, to forsake Moses, saying, they OUGHT NOT TO CIRCUMCISE THEIR CHILDREN." Here the question concerning circumcision is again brought directly to view, and Paul is charged with teaching his Jewish converts to neglect it; but in case he had taught them to baptize their children in its room, was he not called upon, in the most imperious manner, to have declared it in self-defence? Let any candid person, that is willing to undertake, give a fair answer to this question. If there ever was an occasion which required such a statement, it was the present. The total silence of the apostle on the subject, when he was thus pressed by his Jewish brethren, is irresistible proof to |