state in which they were at the beginning." See Matth. xix. 8.*

Moreover, though circumcision itself was not that bondage, which the Israelites were unable to bear, (See Acts xv. 10,) but only in

*In proportion as Christianity prevails, it improves the condition of the female sex, who in every age and nation have experienced such cruel treatment from the men. The law of Moses made provision for the happiness of females. The gospel of Christ proceeds further, and aims to bring every woman to be such to her husband, as Eve was to Adam in the garden of Eden. But let no person understand what the apostle Paul says, "There is neither male nor female," with such latitude, as is plainly repugnant to certain distinctions, which the same apostle has made. Let no one, from that general declaration, infer, for instance, that it is right for a woman to do in the church every thing, which it is right for a man to do; for this would be in the face of the apostle's particular exceptions. See 1. Cor. xiv. 34, 37. I. Tim. ii. 8---12. The apostle takes things from the beginning, and shows, that according to the original formation of man and woman, the woman ought to be, in a certain sense, subject to the man, though, in another sense, they are equal. See I. Cor. xi. 7---12. and I. Tim. ii. 13. See how the apostle describes the duties of husbands and wives in Eph. v. 22-33. The Greek word rendered men, in I. Tim. ii. 8. is such, as cannot include females. We need not however know any thing about Greek, in order to understand, that according to the doctrine of Paul, as well as that of Peter, there is a distinction between what is proper for a man, and what is proper for a woman. "But," says Paul, "if any' "ignorant, let him be ignorant."

one is

troductory to it, after the law was given, (Gal. v. 1, 3.) yet circumcision itself was attended with some pain and trouble. But baptism is an easy thing, and, in this respect, suited to the Christian dispensation, which requires nothing hard.* There is no such difference between circumcision and baptism, as takes away the force of the present argument.

There appears to be nothing in the nature of baptism, to render it improper to be administered to infants. When baptism is administered to any person, it signifies his need of the remission of sins and the renewing of the Holy Spirit. Infants need the remission of sins and the renewing of the Holy Spirit; and it is no more impossible for them to exercise faith, than it was impossible for Isaac, when eight days old, or any infant in the ancient church, to exercise that faith, which Abraham had, in uncircumcision.

It has been asked, how can baptism be said to have taken the place of circumcision, since circumcision was practised in the time of the apostles, among the Christian Jews? Baptism, according to what has been remarked, has not

*We are not, however, so to understand what Peter says, Acts xv. 10. as to make it contradict what the Psalmist says," I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things [that is, altogether] to be right."

taken the place of circumcision in all respects; particularly, of circumcision, as sealing the Sinai covenant. This covenant was not at once to "vanish away." If the Christians among the Jews had considered circumcision unnecessary, as a token of the Abrahamic covenant, they would have considered it necessary, as required in the law of Moses, and as a seal of the Sinai covenant. This question, however, may be answered, by another question; how can king Solomon be said to have succeeded king David, since solomon began to reign before his father's death?

It has been said, that, if baptism has taken the place of circumcision, it is nothing; because the apostle Paul says, "Circumcision is nothing." I. Cor. vii. 19. If the person who thus speaks, desires to know the apostle's meaning in this place, let him read the whole verse, and the preceding verse, and compare these two verses with Gal. iii. 28. and v. 6. and vi. 12-16. and Col. iii. 11. But was not circumcision something, before baptism took its place? What does this same apostle say upon this point? What profit is there of circumcision? "Much every way; chiefly, because" "unto them [the Israelites] were committed the oracles of God. For, what, if some

did not believe, shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?" make it a vain thing to trust in God? See Rom. iii. 1-3.

It may be asked, though believing Gentiles are, spiritually, Abraham's seed, what interest have their natural seed in the covenant of grace? The same interest, (according to what has been already remarked) as the natural seed of those Jews, who believed the gospel. Furthermore, let it be considered, that the children of those proselytes, who, in the time of the ancient church, heartily took hold of God's covenant, had the same interest in the covenant, as the children of those of Abraham's natural seed, who walked in the steps of his faith.

From what has been said concerning circumcision and baptism, it appears, that no parent has a right to have his children baptized, merely, because he himself was baptized in his infancy. If his children were baptized upon this principle, they would be baptized, not upon his account, but upon the account of his parents, or of some person, upon whose account he himself was baptized. When a parent among the Israelites was truly pious, was circumcised in heart, and felt disposed faithfully to do his duty to his children, he might with

propriety hope, that his immediate offspring would be blessed, and of course have some hope respecting their children. The like may be said with regard to Christian parents. It was not necessary, that circumcision should be performed by a priest or Levite. Parents themselves had liberty to circumcise their own children. It was the duty of a parent, when he had a child circumcised, to take this step with the same faith, with which Abraham had taken it. When a minister of the gospel is requested to baptize a child, it is improper for him to do it, merely because he is requested by a parent, who was himself baptized in infancy. It is manifestly improper to baptize the child, unless it would be proper for him, according to Mark xvi. 16. to baptize the parent himself, if he needed and desired baptism, and unless the parent appears to be disposed to bring up the child in a manner corresponding with baptism. As the kingdom of God belongs only to little children, and those, who resemble little children, to such only baptism belongs. But in a christian country a man's requesting a minister of the gospel to baptize his child, may give little evidence of his having that faith, with which salvation is connected, and of his