be a God unto him and to his seed ?" Was it not "a sign of the circumci sion of the heart and spirit ?" Was it not "a seal of the righteousness of faith ?" Were not peculiar spiritual privileges associated with it? Were not the oracles of God committed to those who were circumcised?" and was not Jesus Christ a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers?" Nay, did it not lay all that were circumcised under peculiar obligations?-obligations of a nature, as much beyond the power of infants to fulfil, as those of repentance and faith, which baptism requires? "Every one who was circumcised was a debtor to do the whole law."-" Circumcision profited, if a person kept the law; but if he were a breaker of the law, his circumcision was made uncircumcision." Hence it appears, that all who were circumcised became debtors, and were required to keep the law; just as all who are baptized are commanded to repent and believe; so that, in all respects, the duties and privileges of the two ordinances run parallel with each other; and the very same argument that attempts to show, that children should be excluded from baptism, on the ground of incapacity to perform its obligations, or a defect in qualification to enjoy its privileges, would also prove that they ought never to have been circumcised; and thus would directly charge God with having established an ordinance for the admission of infants into his Church, which confers an impossible obligation: an imputation, which must be rejected with abhorrence. It is then, I think, sufficiently evident, that there is no such difference between circumcision and baptism, as to make the former a proper medium for introducing infants into the Church, and the latter an insuperable barrier to that privilege. If, therefore, children once were received into the Church, it remains for those who would now

exclude them, to produce their authority for the prohibition. I have shown that God himself has decided the point, that they were once proper subjects of his kingdom, though the ordinance, which admitted them, was attended with obligations as far beyond the power of children to fulfil, as any which are attached to baptism; and if they are now to be shut out of that kingdom, it remains with our opponents to show the cause." p. 38-39.

On the identity of the Jewish and Christian Churches, though subsisting under different modifications, the author reasons thus :

"That the Church, which existed among the Jews, was to be perpetuated among Christians, is fairly to be inferred from the declaration of our Lord to the Jews, that "the kingdom of God should be taken from them, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof"....Matth. xxi. 43. That "the kingdom of God," means the Church, which had hitherto existed among the Jews, will be admitted by all; that this Church was to be taken from them, and given to others, is equally self-evident. Let it then be observed, that this was a mere transfer ;—a taking from one, and giving to another, the very same thing. The Jews lost what the Gentiles gained, but no change took place in the thing transferred; this continued unaltered; nothing was added to it, nothing was taken from it: if, therefore, the Church, whilst it existed among the Jews, consisted of infants and adults, the same Church, when transferred to the Gentiles, consisted also of infants and adults; and as there can be no members of a Christian Church without baptism, it inevitably follows, that children must be baptized." p. 40-41.

The feverish jealousy with which the Jews watched over the slightest

innovations on their system, renders it highly improbable that they would calmly acquiesce in the exclusion of the whole race of children from church-membership, which they enjoyed under the Mosaic dispensation. They often contended with the Apostles for setting aside their sacred rites, but never complained of this exclusion; and the fair inference is, that baptism was extended to their chil dren under the new economy, as circumcision was under the old.

"From the time of Abraham, they and their children constituted the true Church; the stream, which had issued from this remote source, continued to flow in undiminished strength to the boundary, which separated Jews and Christians: there it met with no obstruction, but still pursued its uniform course, free and uncontracted. They and their children were always blended together; they had all been circumcised, they continued still to circumcise, and they advanced, as inseparable associates, into the Christian field: here they are required to adopt an additional badge to commence the followers of one, greater indeed than Moses, but still in perfect union and concert with him: they must be baptized as the symbol of their attachment to their new Master, and as the indispensable means of obtaining the benefits he had engaged to confer. But at this point we are told (I should like to know the chapter and verse where) that the parent and his child are no longer to procced together; an edict has passed from the new leader (in what archives it is to be found, they do not inform us) that the parent is to be admitted into the Christian fold, and his child to be shut out! The stream, which had flowed in blessings through so many generations, is now to be contracted and deprived of more than half its strength, its beauty, and its glory; for, in the fulness of the benevolence of the Re

deemer's heart, he could not find room for little children; and for the present, at least, they could have no share of his bounty! And what makes the affair still more extraordi nary is, the parent acquiesces in this exclusion of the child, whom he loves as his own life, and with whom he had approached to the very edge of the fold, without the least misgiving that He, who had "gathered the lambs in his arms, and carried them in his bosom," and had said "Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not," would gladly receive them: he submits, however, to the unexpected, unnatural and cruel exclusion, without once opening his lips, or giving vent to the feelings of nature, though the same parent, on all other occasions, had been captious, and querulous, and jealous beyond sufferance! nay, to add to this accumulation of paradoxes, he still continues to circumcise his child, as the appointed means of ensuring the blessing promised to the true Israel, at the very time he is told by his new instructors, that children have no claim to those privileges! and what is as strange as all the rest, they do not say one word upon the extraordinary anomaly; but whilst they take the greatest pains to set them right on all other points, and even incur their resentment for their faithful ness, they suffer this glaring contradiction between principle and practice to continue without a syllable of disapprobation!" p. 51-53.

"There is something exceedingly imposing," remarks the author by the mouth of his Minster, in the third conversation," in the objections you have been accustomed to hear, and an appearance of downright matter of fact against the practice of baptizing infants. When a person is asked, What? was not Jesus Christ himself baptized, after he was grown up? Were not the disciples of John also adults, when baptized ? Had not the

three thousand, who were converted at St. Peter's first sermon, arrived at years of maturity? Were not the eunuch, the jailor, Lydia, and others, all baptized on the profession of their faith? And where is your instance of a single infant baptized ? or, where can you find one word, which can justify such a practice? When these, and similar questions are put to a person, who has never seriously turned his thoughts on the subject, he is struck with their apparent conclusiveness, and immediately suspects that he has no solid ground to stand upon.

Parishioner.-You have, I believe, in a great measure explained the cause of my easy credulity. It certainly did appear to me so clear a case, that I was at a loss to account for my not having before adverted to what seemed so plain and self-evident. My mind, therefore, became almost exclusively occupied with the ideas which those remarks suggest ed; and instead of looking around me for a solution of my difficulties, or applying where I was most likely to obtain assistance, I surrendered my judgment and understanding almost without an effort. I now perceive that it was absolutely impossible, in the very nature of things, that a new religion could commence with out baptizing adults; that parents themselves must be converted and made Christians, before their children could be baptized; that the very circumstances which took place at the first publication of Christianity, must always occur, when the Gospel is successfully introduced into any country; that the missionaries of the Church of England in heathen counaries, act exactly in the same manner as the first disciples of Jesus Christ; and if they were as successful in converting thousands at a sermon, as the Apostles were, there would be as many instances of adult baptism: but as you rightly observe, there is no controversy whatever, on this sub

ject: all are agreed upon it-though I must think, that now and then our Baptist friends want a little more candour on this point; for I can hardly suppose, that they are ignorant that all denominations of Christians hold with adult baptism in such cases as they allude to; and if they do, it is scarcely ingenuous to represent these facts as supporting their practice, and directly opposing ours, since, in truth, they do not make the least, either for or against the prac tice of baptizing infants." p. 5961.

Our Lord's rebuke to the disciples "Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not,” may be adduced as a link in the chain of argument, though by itself it can hardly be thought sufficient authority for baptizing infants; for by his behaviour towards them on that occasion," he certainly intimated that they were capable of spiritual benefits. Would he have taken them in his arms, and blessed them, and declared that “of such is the kingdom of heaven," if he had thought them unworthy of being made members of his kingdom on earth? Does not the act forcibly recal to mind the character given him by the Prophet-" He shall gather the lambs in his arms, and carry them in his bosom ?" and was not his solemn injunction to St. Peter,"feed my lambs," of a piece with this tenderness? These were certainly not the acts of one who designed to exclude them from the privileges. of church-membership.

The following argument will appear new to some of our readers:

"Minister. The Apostles of Jesus Christ, also, desirous of perpetuating Christianity by an accession of fresh members from the families of those who had embraced the Gospel, might naturally be expected to take every opportunity of turning the attention of young persons to the in

teresting subject of baptism, as that ordinance by which they were to enter into the visible Church, and be come "a seed to serve God," when their fathers should be sleeping in the dust.

“Parishioner.—Undoubtedly for these would constitute the hope of the flock; and a wise as well as tender shepherd would ever extend to them his most watchful and anxious attention whoever might be neglected, these would be ever uppermost in his thoughts, and would experience his constant care.

"Min. You would also expect to find a class of individuals, especially after a Christian Church had been planted for some time (as must have been the case when St. Paul, in the decline of life, wrote to Timothy and Titus) who would be candidates for the ordinance of baptism, and be placed on their trial for admission into the Church.

"Par. Such is the case at the present day in the Baptist churches; and I have occasion to know, that no individuals are thought to require so much attention from the minister of these churches, as those who are preparing for this solemn ceremony.

"Min. I suppose he takes every opportunity of talking with them on the subject, explaining its nature, confirming them in their principles, and encouraging them to persevere.

"Par. Certainly; and in doing so, I conceive he acts with the greatest propriety. The case demands peculiar attention.

"Min. The Apostles, also, I should imagine, would be equally urgent in their addresses to the several Churches, on the same interesting topics.

"Par. So I should think.

"Min. Will you point me to any passage in any of their addresses recorded in the Acts (that to the Church of Ephesus, for instance) or in their Epistles (such as those to Timothy or Titus, in which, if the subject were adverted to at all, it

would be sure to be mentioned) where any such notice is taken of this class of individuals?

"Par. I do not immediately recollect any; but your acquaintance with the New Testament will enable you to point them out, if there be any.

"Min. I may then assure you that there is no passage whatever, in which the least allusion is made to any thing of the kind. No attention, in this respect, is paid to the hope of the flock. Parents are never reminded to admonish their children on this subject, nor young persons themselves urged to a due preparation for it no observation, either directly, or indirectly, ever escapes the tongue or pen of any of the Apostles upon it, though he addresses all classes and ages, old men and young men, old women and young women, parents and children, husbands and wives, masters and servants, kings and subjects; and descends to the most minute duties of each. How is this to be accounted for?

"Par. In no way, but on the supposition that there is no such class of individuals.

"Min. The fact then is, that these had already been baptized in their infancy." p. 65-68.

The author next proceeds to adduce the direct authorities in favour, of the prevalence of the custom in the early Church.

As the Acts of the Apostles is a history of their labours in converting the heathen; and as the Epistles were written to Churches or individuals but newly converted, we are so far from expecting any records of infant baptism in them, that their mention would have been purely incidental, since there could be no motive for recording what was of every day's occurrence. The silence therefore in which the practice is passed over, affords a presumption of its continuance, unless it can be shown by other modes of reasoning that it never