the covenant of grace. This is a point of primary importance, in the controversy respecting infant baptism, and therefore I have been the more particular in endeavouring fully to establish it. And I trust it has been established, to the satisfaction of every unprejudiced person who has attended to the arguments and understood them.

We shall therefore in this discourse assume it as an established principle, that the covenant made with Abraham was the covenant of grace. It was also shown in the discourse alluded to on this subject, that circumcision was a sign and seal of the Abrahamic covenant, and therefore a sign and seal of the covenant of grace; and that infants of eight days old, were, by the express command of God, circumcised, and thus introduced into a visible standing in the covenant of grace.

The next point which claims our attention is, has baptism come in the room of circumcision?

Circumcision has undoubtedly been abrogated. From its very nature, as being by the shedding of blood, typical of the blood of Christ which was to be shed, it was proper that it should cease to be a seal of the covenant, when he had actually appeared, and shed his blood to make atonement for sin. And it is abundantly evident, especially from the writings of Paul, that it was done away, and ceased to be a seal of the covenant, under the New Testament. Baptism was instituted to be a sign and seal of the covenant of grace under the New Testament; and that it came in the room of circumcision, we prove by the following arguments.

1. They were both initiating rites. Circumcision formerly introduced the subject into a visible standing in God's covenant and church, and was the evidence of such standing. The same is the case now with respect to baptism.

2. The signification of both ordinances is the same, except in those points in which the difference of dispensation required a difference. Both signify the guilt and pollution of the subject; and both represent the blood of Christ, and justification by faith in his blood. Circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith; and we are baptized in the name of Christ, for the remission of sins which is through faith in his blood. Circumcision represented regeneration and sanctification, or the cutting

off the body of sin; and agreeably to this we read of a circumcision of heart, by which is evidently meant regeneration and sanctification. Baptism undoubtedly represents the same or a cleansing from the pollution of sin. Since therefore the one was instituted on the abrogation of the other, and occupies the same place in the covenant, and signifies the same things, is it not a just conclusion that it has come in its room

3. Further, that baptism has come in the room of cir cumcision, appears from the following passage, Col. ii. 11, 12. "In whom also (that is Christ) ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him, through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." In this passage the apostle identifies the two ordinances, and represents regeneration and sanctification by them both, and uses the terms circumcision and baptism indiscriminately; whence we again infer that since the former has been done away, the latter has come in its room.

4. The same may be argued from the consideration that Christ came to enlarge, and not to take away or abridge the privileges of the church; and circumcision was a privilege, as we learn from the answer which the apostle gave to the question, "What profit is there of circumcision? much every way;" Rom. iii. 1, 2. Since then circumcision was a privilege and has ceased, if nothing has come in its room, Christ has abridged the privileges of the church, which is contrary to the whole tenor of the New Testament.

From all these considerations we draw the conclusion, that baptism under the New Testament dispensation of the covenant of grace has come in the room of circumcision under the old. Both are initiating ordinances, both signify and seal the same things, they are identified by the apostle, the privileges of the church have been enlarged, and circumcision was a privilege, and in addition to all these the one ceased about the time the other was instituted.

Considering this point now as established, that baptism has come in the room of circumcision as a seal of the cov enant of grace, the consequence will follow, that baptism

is to be applied to the same subjects now, as circumcision was formerly, unless we can find a direction of God in his word forbidding it. For the change of the seal does not affect the covenant or the subjects. As for instance should the leader of an army see proper to change the uniform of his soldiers, or the badge by which they had been distinguished as his-there would be no necessity of pointing out who should wear it. The same persons who had been entitled to wear the old badge, would of course wear the new one, unless they were forbidden. In like manner when our Saviour instituted baptism as the ordinance of admission into his visible church, and gave to his apostles the commission contained in our text; there was no necessity that he should point out the subjects of this ordinance, unless he intended to take away the right of admission into his visible church from some who had before possessed it. For the apostles would of course apply the new seal to the same description of persons as had before received the old. As under the old dispensation the proselytes who were received into the church from the Gentile world, had first to be taught the nature of the Jewish religion, and to profess their faith in it, before they could be circumcised and admitted to a standing in the church; but being circumcised and admitted themselves, their children were entitled of course-so the apostles when commissioned to baptize, would naturally, unless forbidden, pursue the same course. They would first teach the nature of the christian dispensation, and those adults who professed to believe in it they would baptize, and then apply the seal to their children of course, as coming in with them.

It does not lie upon us to prove that there is an express command in the New Testament for infant baptism; but upon those who deny infant baptism, to prove that it is forbidden; and until this is done the argument for infant baptism from infant circumcision will remain unshaken. For infants once had a visible standing in the church and the covenant of grace. This right was given to them by God himself; and none but God has a right to take it a way. Has he then taken away this right? Has he forbidden children to be any more introduced to a visible standing in the church? Where is this prohibition contained? In what part of the New Testament? It can not be found.

The silence of the New Testament is urged as a grand argument against infant baptism. But this silence so far from being against, is altogether in favour of infant baptism. If children of parents in visible covenant, were to have continued unto them, under the New Testament dispensation,the privilege of admission to a visible standing in God's church and covenant, which they had enjoyed from the time of Abraham, there was no necessity that a single word should be said about it. For the initiating seal or baptism would of course be applied to them as circumcision had formerly been. But if on the other hand, children who had long enjoyed the right to have the seal of God's covenant applied to them, were on the introduction of the New Testament dispensation to be deprived of this right, then there would have been great need, and it was of high importance that this should have been clearly and explicitly made known, and left on record, by the great Head of the church, in his word. And we cannot reasonably suppose it would have been omitted. And since the New Testament has no where said a word, prohibiting the initiating seal of the covenant to infants, the natural, just, and necessary conclusion is, that their right has not been taken away, but that they still retain it, and therefore ought to be baptized.

Will it be objected that the command was, repent, believe, and be baptized, and since infants are incapable of these exercises, that therefore this amounts to a prohibition? This is a very popular objection against infant baptism; but it is more specious than solid. Let us give the objection its full force, and if it proves any thing, it will prove too much, and will inevitably lead to a consequence which the objector dares not admit. We find every

where in the New Testament, repentance and faith held up as essential to salvation. "Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish;" Luk. xiii. 3. "He that believeth not shall be damned;" Mark xvi. 16. On the principle of the objector, as infants are incapable of exercising repentance and faith, they must be incapable of salvation. This dreadful consequence follows by the same reasoning, by which he proves that infants should not be baptized. The Scriptures say repent believe, and be baptized, infants cannot repent and believe, therefore conclude our opponents, they cannot be baptized. The same course of

reasoning will exclude all infants from salvation. The Scriptures say repent, believe, and be saved, infants cannot repent and believe, therefore they cannot be saved. If the reasoning be good in the one case, it is good in the other. Yea the conclusion is much more legitimate from the premises in the latter case than the former; because the Scriptures expressly declare that without faith and repentance there can be no salvation; but they no where say that those who have not faith and repentance should not be baptized. The fact is that in both these cases, adults are meant. When the Scriptures tell us that faith and repentance are necessary to salvation, they mean in those capable of exercising them, viz. adults. And they mean the same when they speak of faith and repentance as qualifications for baptism. And it is readily conceded that unbaptized adults have no right to baptism, but upon a credible profession of faith and repentance. That adults to whom the apostles spake, were commanded to repent, believe, and be baptized, therefore argues nothing against infant baptism, or if it does prove any thing, inevitably proves too much. For the argument militates equally against the salvation of infants as against their bap

tism.

We confidently assert it again, that the New Testament, has no where taken away the right of infants to the initiating seal of God's gracious covenant. They once were judged fit subjects of the seal of the righteousness of faith, and had a right to have it put upon them; and therefore they still retain it, and consequently are to be baptized. If children are now forbidden, let such prohibition be produced, but until it is produced, we will rejoice in calling God, as his people of old did, our God and the God of our seed.

Here we might with safety rest the cause of infant baptism; but we have additional evidence of the truth of the doctrine. The New Testament not only does not say one word forbidding infant baptism; but on the contrary it gives us much postive evidence in its favour. If the NewTestament had been entirely silent, the just conclusion as has been shown would be that infants retained their right to the initiating seal; but this conclusion is strengthened by what is said in the New Testament.

From the whole of the New Testament, it is evident