such a practice with that of infant baptism, who forbid us to dedicate our children to God at the same age when, by God's own appointment, the children of the Jews were dedicated; and when the Son of God Himself, in His character of a Jew, undertook the burden and laid claim to the promises which belonged to the seed of Abraham ?

Let us examine the matter a little more closely. God is not mocked, neither is God a mocker of His creatures. He knows our misery too well to trifle with it, and He is as far from giving us the delusive comfort of a useless pageant, as He is from being Himself imposed upon by any pageantry of worthless ceremonies. But, if the baptism of children, as these suppose, is worthless and unmeaning, it is evident that the circumcision of children must fall under an equal censure. But this last is allowed, on all hands, to have been instituted by God Himself, and it will follow that the inconsistencies ascribed to the former practice must be more imaginary than real, and that we may well hope that God favourably alloweth this charitable work of ours in bringing these infants to His holy baptism.

I know it has been urged that circumcision was the seal of admission, not to spiritual, but temporal privileges, the possession of an earthly Canaan, the entrance into the visible sanctuary, the right of being numbered among the descendants of Abraham and the family of the future Messiah. I have already proved, I trust, that its privileges were not confined to these, and that its meaning, if regard

be had to some remarkable expressions both of the prophets and of St. Paul, was exceedingly more extensive and more solemn. But, even if we were to admit the allegation, how would this destroy the analogy? In the first place, it is well known (so well known, indeed, as to admit of no dispute among Christians) that the civil institutions and temporal privileges of the Jews had all, likewise, a typical and mysterious character; that they were shadows of good things to come, and representatives of that spiritual blessedness which we seek after and obtain by a due recourse to the sacra ment of baptism. But from the type to the antitype the inference is fair and obvious, and if a child might, by submitting to a certain ceremony, be made partaker of the advantages of the one, it is, surely, too much to deny that a child being, in another and corresponding ceremony, dedicated by its parents to God, might not, through God's favour, become partaker of the privileges of the other. Is God's arm grown short under the Christian dispensation? Is His mercy chilled and narrowed? or is not the promise of the glorious Gospel given to us and to our children, and to our children's children, no less than was to the house of Israel the promise of those elemental and external blessings which, in comparison with our own, St. Paul is not afraid to designate as "beggarly"."

But let the privileges conferred by circumcision

1 Gal. iv. 9.

have been of whatever kind they may, those privileges, it is plain, were conditional on the performance, through life, of certain duties. It was to the Israelite a seal of the faith which he had in the promises and power of the Almighty; it was a pledge on his part of obedience to Jehovah that he should have the Lord for his God, and none other. If he broke this covenant his privileges were forfeited; his circumcision became uncircumcision; he retained neither lot nor part in the federation of the tribes, or was liable only to the indignation and vengeance of their Heavenly Patron and Sovereign. It was in fact a contract, no less than baptism is now, between each individual Israelite and the Most High.

But if the child of Jewish parents were capable of entering into such a contract, who has forbidden, or who shall forbid the Christian infant from, in like manner, entering by his sureties into a similar solemn engagement? Who shall doubt that though the weakness and the tender age be alike in both, the merciful arms of a gracious Lord are as open in the one instance as the other?

And this presumption will gain yet further strength, if we recollect that circumcision is, by God Himself, called "a token of the covenant between Himself and Israel." Now for whose use and instruction was such a token intended? for which of the contracting parties? Did God require a memento of His own gracious purposes? Did God need that a bodily mark should be imposed on His

people, in order that He might know and distinguish them from the Gentiles among whom they were scattered? Or was it not rather designed for the instruction and comfort of the individual on whom it was affixed, to preserve in his mind the recollection of those hopes which were held out to his continued allegiance to God, those terrours which impended over his departure from the prescribed conditions? Was it not a pledge on the part of the parents and friends, that the infant whom they thus brought into treaty with the Most High should, in after years, be trained up by them in His faith and fear, and that Ishmael and Isaac should be taught, like their father Abraham, to know the Lord their God, and to look forward to his future Messiah? Or which of all these points is there which is not equally supplied to the child of Christian parents by his early dedication to our Great Master's service? He cannot, indeed, in the one any more than in the other instance, himself be at the moment made sensible of his new privileges, or the new obligations which are laid on him; but he has the prayers of his parents and of the Church, offered up in that manner and by that form to which the Almighty has promised a blessing. The ceremony which he undergoes is a pledge on the part of the Church that he shall be admitted to her external means of instruction; it is a petition addressed to the Almighty that those means of instruction may be blessed to his everlasting happiness; it is a solemn claim of that promise from

God, which He has made to all without exception, and which, be it remembered, is a promise of free grace and mercy only, to the fulfilment of which, whether infant or adult, the applicant is alike incapable of contributing any merits or strength of his own, and for which the infant, no less than the adult, has the plea of his natural weakness and his natural misery.

"The

The promise, I repeat, is made to all, and the young as well as the old partake in it. child," according to the ancient prophet, was under the Gospel covenant, "to die an hundred years old1." And who shall deny that those infants of whom Christ himself declared that "of such was the kingdom of Heaven"," have, no less than the most aged saint, their proportional share in its happiness? But, can any enter Heaven without the sanctifying grace of Christ? Or, if infants are fit subjects for this grace, if they are really inheritors of the kingdom of God, and partakers of those spiritual influences in this life, without which our fleshly nature cannot see the Lord, then "can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we3?" Surely, the more we examine it the more reasonable does the practice appear, as a seal of past mercies, as an engagement to future duties, as an admission to the external means of grace which the Church can in this world supply, and as a solemn St. Matt. xix. 14.

'Isaiah lxv. 20.

3 Acts x. 47.

1