institution to warrant our applying the seal to them; but we evidently need a new institution to justify our excluding them from it.

Infant baptism stands on the same ground as the christian sabbath. If it be asked, why the gopsel has not, in so many words, instituted a weekly sabbath, the answer is, it found a weekly sabbath already instituted; and a formal institution of that, which had been instituted before, was wholly unnecessary. The apostles took the sabbath as they found it, only observing a different day, after Christ's resurrection, in memory of that glorious event. So they continued the ancient usage of applying the seal of God's covenant to children, as well as parents; only they changed the external form of the seal, substituting baptism for circumcision. The ancient institution, unrevoked, if we had nothing more, would be sufficient to justify the application of the seal to infants. But we have still farther warrant.

Let us view the argument in another light. 2. Circumcision was of old, by divine command, applied to infants: And if baptism

stands now in the place of circumcision, then this is also to be applied to the same subjects. The consequence is plain and undeniable. The only question is, Whether baptism does now stand in the place of circumcision? This is the point to be proved.

That circumcision was the seal of the Covenant with Abraham, and was, by divine appointment, administered to infants, is well known that the Abrahamic covenant still subsists, and is the same as the Gospel covenant, the Apostle plainly teaches-that baptism is now the appointed token of the gospel covenant, none will deny: The consequence is obvious; baptism now stands in the place of circumcision, for it is the seal of that very covenant, of which circumcision was the seal formerly.

Again. The Apostle says, Rom. iv. 11. Abraham received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of faith. It is plain from this passage, that circumcision was a sign of spiritual blessings, the blessings of the covenant of grace: And not (as some absurdly preténd) meerly a sign of wordly privileges, such as a right to the land of Ca

naan, a numerous issue, &c. There were, it is true, temporal blessings promised to Abraham and his seed. But to argue from hence, that the covenant with him was a meer temporal covenant, and that circumcision was only a seal of it as such, is as absurd, as it would be to say, the gospel is a meer worldly institution, because it has the promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come. The Apostle, in this passage, represents circumcision in quite a different light, as especially and eminently a seal of spiritual blessings.-That baptism is such, all allow : And therefore it comes in the room of circumcision, and stands in the place in which that once stood.

Farther: These two rites, though different in their outward form, are the same in their spiritual use and significancy. Circumcision signified our native corruption: So does baptism. Circumcision pointed out the necessity of inward purity and spiritual renovation: So does baptism. That represented our justification by the blood of Christ': So does this. That was a ceremony of admission into God's church: So is this. That

denoted men's relation to God and obligation to obey his law. This also denotes our relation to Christ and obligation to obey his gospel.

But the Apostle puts this matter out of all'doubt, when he calls baptism the circumcision of Christ, and urges christians being baptized, as a reason why they need not be circumcised.

He says, Col. ii. 11, 12. Ye are complete in him, (in Christ) in whom ye also are cir

cumcised 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. The Apostle here calls baptism, the circumcision of Christ, or the christian circumcision. But he calls it by this name without any propriety, unless it stands in the place of circumcision.

The author, whom I have several times -mentioned, fabours much to evade the force of this passage. He says, by the circumcision of Christ, is "meant, the spiritual circumcision,' or renovation of the heart, in distinction from the literal circumcision.” But this cannot be the meaning of the phrase:

For the inward spiritual circumcision is mentioned in the preceding branch of the sentence, under the name of the circumcision made without hands. And if we take both phrases to signify the sume; then we shall make the words to run thus. Ye are circumcised with the spiritual circumcision, in being circumcised by the spiritual circumcisions Such an unmeaning repetition never dropt from the Apostle.

The writer says, That to guard the Colossians against the danger of being seduced to the observance of circumcision, the Apos tle tells them, They had received the spiritual circumcision-and therefore the literal circumcision was not necessary.' But how did this spiritual circumcision or internal renovation prove, that the literal circumeision was not necessary? Circumcision used to be necessary for good men: Why not now? According to this interpretation, external ordinances are not needful for true christians, but only for sinners. Those among the Colossians, who were not sure they had received the spiritual circumcision, could not apply this argument; and there