my mind, that no such practice was then in exist

ence.

I will here take the liberty to state a plain case, and leave it to the consciences of all who read it to answer. Should the missionaries which have lately gone from this country to India, be happily instrumental of the conversion of a number of Jews in that quarter of the world; and should these Jews manifest a willingness to be baptized themselves, but should insist, like those above noticed, upon continuing circumcision to their children, according to the immemorial usages of their ancestors: I appeal to our Fadobaptist brethren to decide, whether these young ministers would not, at once, revolt at the idea; and tell them plainly, that circumcision was done away with the other rites of the ceremonial law; and that baptism was now to be practised in its room. In case these converts should persist in their determination, would they not be likely to repeat to them, what the apostle said to the Galatians: Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing."

GAL. V. 2.

Considering these rites distinct, as these believ ing Jews undoubtedly did; and there is nothing unnatural in the supposition, that they should still insist upon circumcising their children according to the custom of their ancestors: while at the same time, they would willingly be baptized themselves in conformity to the laws of the new dispensation. But to admit the argument of our brethren, would prove them still to be Jews, and not christians.

If Paul taught and practised as our Pædobaptist brethren do, we must suppose, that wherever he carried the gospel, he carried infant-baptism. And hence, if any objected to his neglecting circumcision, he had only to inform them that he practised baptism in its room, and the objection must cease. In this case, I imagine, he would have made some such declaration as the following, to the above charge.

It is true, my brethren, as you have heard, that I teach such as receive the gospel under my ministry,

not to circumcise their children, as you well know that that rite is superseded by baptism; and as the latter is applied to children as well as the former, it would be highly absurd to teach them to observe both." Would not this plain statement have removed every objection which they urged? Can any man in his sober senses believe, that he would not have made à declaration to this amount, had he known the fact?

The objection against Paul for neglecting to initiate children into the covenant, is the same in substance, as that which is made against the Baptists at the present day. Nor do we perceive that he was able to give a more satisfactory answer to those who objected, than we are: but if he had administered the seal in another form, he would have had greatly the advantage of us.

I have now, my dear Friend, laid before you all the direct testimony which the New Testament furnishes concerning baptism. I have also stated some of my reasons, for not believing that infant baptism was practised by the apostles.

I cannot but hope, that what I have written will be satisfactory to your mind, and serve to establish you in the truth; but should it not have this effect, I shall only regret, that either I have failed in representing this christian ordinance with sufficient clearness, or that the prejudices of education have prevented you from seeing it, in its original purity.

From what has now been offered, the following observations may fairly be deduced, viz.

1. It is evident that a great proportion of the first Jewish converts, continued to practise circumcision. This appears from the two preceding statements from the 15th and 21st chapters of Acts.

2. As they continued to circumcise their children, it is morally certain they did not baptize them at the same time; and as a seal of the same covenant.

3. If baptism has taken the place of circumcision, and signifies the same thing, and seals the same covenant; then there must have been the same im

propriety in baptizing upon a profession of faith, any who had been the subjects of that rite; as there now is, in administering the ordinance to those, who have been baptized in their infancy.

4. If our Pædobaptist brethren state the subject fairly, that infant-baptism exactly answers to infantcircumcision, and the apostles acted consistently in baptizing such as professed their faith in Christ without any regard to circumcision, then the Baptists act consistently in baptizing on a profession of faith, such as have been baptized in infancy. The same arguments that will vindicate the apostles from the charge of inconsistency, will vindicate us.

5. If it be a duty to baptize infants, it must be so because it is commanded; if not commanded, for that very reason it ought not to be practised. But where, we ask, is there any such command? If in the Bible, we can only say, we have never been able to discover it: nor have we found any person who could point it out to us.

6. But it is often said, "although there may be no express command to baptize infants, yet surely there can be no harm in thus publickly dedicating our offspring to God." This is a very incorrect sentiment, and attended with consequences dishonourable to God, and highly injurious to the happiness of believers.

To pretend to practise as a divine institution, what God has not commanded, is no less than to dictate to the Almighty, and implicitly to impeach his wisdom and goodness.He that reproveth God, let him an→ swer it.

It is injurious in its consequences; in that, besides (as we have reason to fear,) leading too many to think more highly of themselves than they ought to think, as standing in a covenant relation to God, and therefore less exposed to the divine displeasure than other sinners; it keeps thousands of real christians from obeying the divine command,—to repent and be

baptized, in the name of Jesus Christ.* A vast number of truly godly persons are often exceedingly tried on this point; and are frequently heard to say, " If I had not been baptized in my infancy, I should have no doubts with respect to my present duty." Thus many are forever prevented the pleasure of knowing that they obey Christ, or of following him in his precious example.

The idea of our "recognizing," (as it is called,). our baptism, or of taking upon ourselves what we are told our parents did for us in the moments of unconscious infancy, is a service wholly unknown in the Bible; and stands upon the same footing of sponsors, godfathers, godmothers, &c.

Although the preceding remarks, if admitted, will go to invalidate the practice of our Pædobaptist brethren; yet, I am sure you will not judge me to be wanting in christian affection to such of them as truly love the Lord, I can say in the sincerity of my heart, and I believe I speak the language of my brethren, that I truly regard all that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity and truth. Being agreed with many of them in the great and fundamental doctrines of the gospel, it has ever been my wish, as far as we are agreed, to unite in the common cause of our glorious Redeemer. But if they choose still to keep us/ at a distance, and treat us as an heretical sect, merely because we cannot admit to the Lord's table such as to us are unbaptized; we can only regret, that our views are no more in unison with each other. May the Lord help us all to examine ourselves, and see where the blame lies.

Perhaps, after all, it will be said, that other denominations will admit the Baptists to their communion, and why cannot you admit them to yours ? The cases are by no means similar. For although they may be baptized to themselves, or in their own view, they are On the other hand, we are not only

not so to us.

C 2

*Acts ii. 38.

baptized in our own view, but in theirs also, them selves being judges."*

Should the period ever arrive, (and I pray God to hasten it,) when the truly pious of both denominations shall cordially unite; when difference of opinion on one point only, shall not prevent our union in all others, then shall we be one in the most important sense. On this ground we have long extended the hand of friendship: but to go further we dare not, while we remember that our Lord has said, He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me: and he that taketh not his cross and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. MATT. X. 37, 38.

I have now gone through with what I intended, in exhibiting a plain statement of "christian baptism" from the New Testament. I have designedly omitted those passages in which the words baptize and baptism are used in a figurative sense; not because I think they have any unfavourable bearing on our sentiments, for I think quite the reverse; but because I think them not very material to the argument, although their weight may be all cast into the right scale.

Those who undertake to deny, that immersion was universally practised by the whole christian church, for 12 or 13 hundred years after Christ, excepting in particular cases, forfeit all claim either to candour or learning. This fact is fully proved, by the most respectable writers among the Pedobaptists. If any one wishes to see this proof, we refer him to Dr. Wall's Defence of his History of Infant-baptism, against Dr. Gale, Moshiem's Ecclesiastical History, the Magdeburg Centuriators, &c.

But should you ask, is there nothing to be done for our children? I answer, yes, undoubtedly much.

Pædobaptists often immerse believers, which they certainly would not do, did they not believe it to be valid baptism. But we never on any occasion presume to sprinkle infants.