them, must it not be the same now to the Gentiles? But, perhaps, I am taking more pains than is necessary to establish so plain a position. Let us, then, come to the conclusion that the covenant made with Abraham is the covenant of grace on which the Church is built and sustained in all ages of the world. They that are of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. They enjoy every promise that was made to him.

Let us, then, for a moment examine the tenor of that covenant in which we are included, that we may know how rich and large our mercies are. We are taught that Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness--consequent upon his faith;--God became his God, and his salvation was secured. And we are also taught that when Abraham believed God, upon the simple condition that he should command his children and his household after him, that they should keep the way of the Lord to do justice and judgment, that the Lord might bring upon him that which he had spoken, God promised to become the God of his seed, and their salvation would be secured. Now, if every believer in God in all ages of the world enters into the place of Abraham-into the same covenant, and enjoys the same promises with him, then, whenever he believes, God becomes his God; and upon the same condition on which the promise to Abraham rested, he promises to bestow spiritual and saving blessings upon his seed after him. This is certainly the case if the covenant is the same. If the seed of the believer is not included, the covenant is not the same, and he is not an heir according to the promise made to Abraham. If the covenant now is but half as extensive as it was of old, surely it is another covenant. Surely no one, least of all a Christian parent, will ever feel that it is an immaterial thing to lift out of the sacred enclosure all the seed of the faithful. If anything would essentially alter the basis of a covenant, this would. And what are the statements of the New Testament upon this vital point? The Apostle Peter, preaching upon the day of Pentecost, uses this language (Acts ii. 39): The promise is unto you and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord your God shall call." This language places the Christian believer precisely in the posi tion of Abraham himself;-it is an explicit reiteration of all the parts of the covenant. And the Apostle Paul in the 16th chapter of the book of Acts, when answering the inquiry of the terrified jailor, "What must I do to be saved?" says, "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shall be saved, and thy house." A very strange and adventurous assertion, if the seed of believers have no participation with them in the blessings of the covenant. And the same Apostle, in another instance (1 Cor. vii. 14), when prescribing the course of duty to believers who are already in the marriage relation with unbelievers, directs them on their part to continue therein, and not disturb the harmony of their union, and for their comfort in these circumstances, he adds, "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is

66

sanctified by the husband; else were your children unclean, but now are they holy." I need not spend time to expose a weak and unnatural gloss which has been attempted upon this passage which would make it imply the illegitimacy of the children; inasmuch as (as far as I know.) such a notion never was entertained, in the Church or in the world. The plain and necessary meaning, therefore, of the text is, that if the believing party were not taken by God as the representative of the children, their interest in the covenant would be sacrificed; but now it is not so. Taken, then, in any point of view, whether as an unavoidable inference from the perpetual character of the covenant, or from the testimony of Sacred Writ, the conclusion is the same and inevitable, to wit, that the seed of believers are included with them in the covenant, and are inheritors of the promises. This point being determined, we can see our way clearly to another. It is on the assumption that the believer is furnished with a sign or badge, declarative of his interest in the promises. Should the sign also be applied to his seed? We here occupy a position from which we may avail ourselves of several means of ascertaining the truth.

First, an a priori sentiment of what would be reasonable in the case. If it is important that the believer's interest in the covenant of grace should be visibly betokened to the world, why is it not equally so in the case of his seed? They are as truly included. Their interest is as much a reality, and it is of equal importance to them; what else can we expect but that the sign of their relation should be affixed upon them; and besides, from the nature of the case, a seal of a covenant cannot well be applied to a part and not the whole of it. If it ratifies anything, it must ratify all that it contains; and how can this be, unless it be applied to the seed of believers? This appears to be the rational sentiment that we should have in the case; and precisely in accordance with it are all the known facts. "Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness; and he received the sign of circumcision a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had, yet being uncircumcised." And God said unto him, "Ye shall circumcise the flesh of your fore-skin, and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you; and he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man-child in your generations; and the uncircumcised man-child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people : he hath broken my covenant." It is plain, that upon the ground of the faith of Abraham alone the badge of the covenant was applied to all his seed; and because they were interested in the covenant with him. This settles the principle. In a matter of this kind, what is true once is true always. This principle was acted upon throughout all Israel from the beginning to the end of their history.

But it is said, at the commencement of the Christian dispensation, circumcision was abolished with the ceremonial law, and we

have therefore no more to do with it. It is true that circumcision was abolished at the termination of the Mosaic dispensation, and therefore with it, as a seal of the covenant, we have no more to do. It is a fair question, why was circumcision abolished? It was no part of the ceremonial law originally, for it existed long before it; and the Apostle John affirmed to the Jews, that Moses gave them circumcision, not because it was of Moses, but of the Fathers. Circumcision, therefore, had a significancy and a design wholly apart from that of the ceremonial law. Why, then, was it abolished in connexion with it? In obtaining a clear view of this point, several things are necessary to be taken into account.

1. The seal of a covenant is no part of the covenant itself; it is a mere appendage, wholly distinct from the compact which it ratifies and binds. It is liable, therefore, to be separated from it; to be removed, or changed; and that, too, when no change takes place in the covenant itself. Then, (2.) during the period of its use, circumcision was applied to other purposes besides that one for which it was originally instituted. It was adopted when the law was given, as a national sign; so regarded and treated by the Jews, after the same manner as the Sabbath, which was instituted at the beginning of the world, was incorporated with the Jewish polity, and became one of their national institutes. It also was blended with their types and symbols, and became typical in its character; as a bloody rite, it was emblematical; and, with all their sanguinary ceremonies, pointed to the blood of atonement; and for these reasons, it had become, in the mind of a Jew, essentially connected with their ceremonial and typical law. These all had their fulfilment in the sacrifice of Christ, and it was improper to retain them in use after the great antitype had come. So, for the same reason, it was inexpedient to preserve in use the rite of circumcision, whose typical character had identified it with those things that were then to pass away. Here is a manifest reason why circumcision should pass away with the law of ceremonies; but is there any reason why the covenant should be lest without a token or seal? We surely know of none; we should not anticipate that it would be so left. If the original seal is removed, we look for another in its place. Has the covenant, then, a new seal? Upon this point, among Christians, there happens to be no dispute. Baptism is universally received, by those who do not deny the existence of all external ordinances, as the sign and badge of the righteousness of faith, or of a Christian profession under the new dispensation. Is it asked, does it take the place of circumcision? We answer, no denomination of evangelical Christians uses it for any other purpose. If it is not employed as the sign of a Christian profession, it is employed either superstitiously or wholly without signification.

The further question, then, to be answered is, how extensively is it to be applied? Is it to be applied to believers only, or to their seed also? We ask, why should it be applied to believers

only? It was not so of old. The covenant remains unchanged. The seed of believers are included in it, and the seal belongs not to a part but to the whole of it. Shall it then be applied to believers only and not to their seed? We answer, No. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be-let it be applied to them both.

But we shall be met here with the allegation that there is no command in the New Testament to baptize children. Let it be granted for a moment, that this is true, and we inquire is there in it any permission to forbear to baptize them? Baptism we have seen is the seal of the covenant; so acknowledged to be by the practice of all Christians. But the application of the seal of the covenant to the children of believers is not a newly adopted practice, it is a long established usage; and all analogy and all the dictates of reason bind us to adhere to that usage until we are expressly directed to depart from it. That which requires the interposition of special divine authority to justify it therefore, is not the continuing to do what has always been done, but the ceasing to do it. Is it asked then, where is our command to baptize children? We ask, in our turn, where is your permission to neglect to do it?

But if it be confidently asserted that there is no command in the New Testament to baptize children, we may ask again, is there any to baptize women? Women under the old dispensation were not circumcised and children were-by what singular stretch of authority is it assumed now to apply the badge of the covenant where it was not applied of old, and to withhold it where it certainly was applied? If an express command is to be insisted on in the case how is this difficulty to be overcome? But let us examine a little the allegation that there is no command in the New Testament to baptize children the seed of believers. Is this certainly so? What signifies the Savior's departing injunction, "Go ye, and cisciple all nations, baptizing them?" Of whom are all nations constituted? Of men, or women, or children exclusively? Or are they constituted of all of them together? and by what right is any class of those who constitute the nations excepted? when this command of the Savior has been fully obeyed, and all the nations are baptized, will the children included in them then be baptized or will they not? This question requires no answer. But it will be said again, that in order to baptism, the nations must be discipled-that faith is a necessary prerequisite to baptism in the New Testament, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," and for this reason children must be excluded. It is perfectly true that faith is made an essential prerequisite to baptism throughout the New Testament. In all covenant transactions between God and his creatures, faith is required in the transacting party. God invites, commands, threatens, and proffers good conditionally to those who do not believe: he makes covenant pledges only to those who believe. This principle we

adopt without any limitations whatever; and hence we do not believe that adults, who must act on their own responsibility, are to be admitted to the ordinance of baptism without a profession of their faith. Nor do we believe that they have a right to present their children for baptism, seeing there is no faith in them who are to assume the responsibilities of the covenant. If God will not perform covenant transactions with them for themselves without faith, he surely will not do it with them for their children without faith. And further, we do not believe that the children of believing parents, in whom faith is not developed, are competent to enter into covenant with God for themselves, on their individual and independent responsibility. This would be a transaction without faith and in opposition to the principles of the Gospel. But we do believe, without a doubt, that believers may enter into covenant with God, and that too, not only for themselves, but for those who belong to them as natural seed. In this case the transaction is not with the seed, but with the believer, on the`r behalf; and it is not without faith, but with faith in the transacting party; and as in the case of Abraham, he believed God and it was counted unto him for righteousness, and he received the sign of circumcision and applied the sign also to all his seed; so the Christian parent believes and it is counted for righteousness, and he receives the sign of baptism, and may also apply it to his children. There is no departure from the principle of the New Testament in this. Nor do the New Testament Scriptures assert any principle here, different from what is maintained in the Scriptures of the Old Testament. It is no more true that faith is necessary to baptism, than it is that under the old dispensation it was necessary to circumcision. This is clearly affirmed in respect to Abraham in the fourth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans. Abraham believed God and it was counted unto him for righteousness, and he received the sign of circumcision a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had, yet being uncircumcised, that is, before he was circumcised, Abraham believed in order to circumcision; and this was required of every Jew and every proselyte, when they received circumcision themselves, acting on their own responsibility, or when they presented their seed to be circumcised. They were required to profess themselves believers in, and worshipers of the only living and true God. Faith was universally exacted as a condition of receiving the seal of the covenant. This was as true under the Old Testament economy as it is under the New; and yet we know that under the old economy this was consistent with the application of the seal to the seed of the believer on his faith. It cannot, therefore, be inconsistent with the same thing under the new economy.

Our conclusion then is this. The Abrahamic covenant is the platform of the church in all ages. It is the covenant of grace in its most extensive signification. It is the same under the Christian that it was under the Patriarchal and Mosaic dispensations.