fore, according to our author, must still ob serve the literal circumcision. Besides; the same argument would prove, that they need not be baptized; for if they had received the spiritual washing of sanctification, what occasion was there for the literal washing of baptism? And yet, according to him, none must be baptized, but actual believers; so that, if we admit his construction of the pas sage, we must disallow of all baptism.

1

Our author says, In the Apostles days, the christians converted from Judaism were zealous to incorporate circumcision with christianity.--Do the Apostles instruct them, that they need not be so tenacious of one rile, since another is appointed in its stead? Such an observation would have been much to the purpose-but nothing can be found of it in their reasonings to dissuade christians from circumcision.'

But the gentleman is under a great mistake. The Jewish converts were zealous to incorporate, not meerly circumcision, but the whole ceremonial law, with christianity. They contended for circumcision as a rite binding to the observance of the whole law,

without which, they imagined, christianity would be incomplete. From this notion Paul labored to reclaim them, and to secure others. He did not oppose circumcision simply: If he had, he would not have circumcised Timothy, nor have approved infant circumcision among the Jewish believers; but he opposed it in the sense above mentioned, as binding men to keep the ceremo nial law in order to acceptance with God. Though he had, upon prudential reasons, circumcised Timothy, yet he gave no place to those who would compel Titus to be circumcised, that they might bring him and others into bondage to the law. Now what argument does the use to dissuade the Colossian believers from circumcision and the observance of the law? It is this: They had received baptism, the christian circumcision, and were now bound to obey the gospel, which, being a complete institution, had superseded the law. Thus he reasons with them in the place before referred to. Be·ware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the rudiments of the world and not after Christ for ye are com

plete in him, and so need not add the ritual law to his gospel; in whom ye are circumcised with the circumcision of Christ, or christian circumcision, being buried with him in baptism.-Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world; if by baptism into his death ye are freed from the rites of the Mosaic dispensation, why, as though living in the world, or under that dispensation, are ye subject to ordinances? You see, that the Apostle urges their baptism into Christ, as a reason why they should not be subject to circumcision and the rites of the ceremonial law, for which the Jews contended. He uses the very argument to dissuade them from circumcision, which this author says, he would use, if baptism came in its place: And therefore, by his own concession, baptism does come in its place. And if so, then it is undeniably to be administered to the same subjects, even the infants of believing par

1

We are told,* that some of the believing Jews at Jerusalem were much displeased, when they heard that Paul taught the Jews,

* Acts xxi. 21.

who were among the Gentiles, that they ought not to circumcise their children. Would it have satisfied such zealous contenders for infant circumcision, to have told them, baptism now came in the place of that ancient ceremony, but yet must not be applied to. their children? This would but have provoked them the more. Had it not been the usage of the Apostles to admit children with their parents into covenant by the same rite, certainly the Jews, among other objections against the gospel, would have urged this, that it excluded their children from covenant privileges. They were apt enough to make objections, and since we find none of this sort, we may conclude, there was no room for any, tonnes ende

That infants, under the patriarchal and Mosaic dispensations, were admitted into Covenant by a particular token, is certain. It is evident, this was considered as a privilege. It is allowed, that the gospel confers greater privileges than former dispensations: But if children are now shut out of cove. nant, then the gospel, instead of enlarging, has in this respect, diminished our privileges.

But says our author, The infallibility of the Roman church may be proved in the same manner; as thus: The people of God under the Old Testament enjoyed the benefit of infallibilty. The high priest had the Urim and Thummim, by which the mind of God was known, &c.; consequently there must be infallibility in the christian church; otherwise the less perfect dispensation of Moses will have a great privilege beyond the christian.'

The truth is, The christian dispensation. has this privilege far beyond the Mosaic. The additional revelation of the gospel discovers the mind of God as infallibly, and far more fully and extensively than ever it was discovered by Urim and Thummim.-Such occasional discoveries now are not needed, since we have a complete, standing revelation, The author of the letters tells us, that circumcision, that Old Testament rite, was a useless, burthensome, injurious ceremony, and treated as such by the Apostles.' And hence he concludes, baptism cannot come in its room to be administered to infants, as that was. But where do the Apostles treat

6