to be cut off from among
the people. Proselytes of the covenant and their children were baptized,
very early."
_Mr. K._ But where is the command to apply baptism to children?
_Mr. M._ Where, my dear sir, is the command to discontinue that which
was enjoined upon the founder of the race of believers for all time? I
believe in the perpetuity of Abraham's relation to us as the father of
the faithful, as I believe in Adam's relation to us as the
representative of the race, and in the Saviour's relation to us as our
representative. God seems to love these federal headships, as we call
them. Abraham did not receive circumcision being a Jew, but, as the
apostle says, "as a seal of the righteousness which is by faith, which
he had while he was yet uncircumcised." We have Scripture for that, Mr.
Kelly. And "the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after," did
not disannul that covenant "that was confirmed before of God in Christ."
How can you call circumcision a Jewish ordinance, when the Bible so
explicitly denies it to be of Jewish origin?
_Mr. K._ O, I do not understand this Abrahamic covenant. I take the New
Testament for my guide.
_Mr. M._ You think well of the book of Psalms, I presume, as a help to
prayer and pious feelings?
_Mr. K._ Yes; but in all matters of faith and practice, the New
Testament, like the doings of the latest session of the legislature, is
the rule for New Testament believers. You might as well have tried to
govern the ancient Jews with the New Testament, as enforce the laws of
the Old Testament on us.
_Mr. M._ Is the privilege of having God stand in a special relation to
my child an Old Testament ordinance, in the same sense with ceremonial
observances?
_Mr. K._ Not exactly that, but it is a superstition to baptize children,
now that circumcision is done away, and believers' baptism is enjoined.
_Mr. M._ Believers' baptism is enjoined, but children's baptism is not
therefore prohibited.
_Mr. K._ But where is it enacted?
_Mr. M._ If the original form of dedicating children is essential, why
is not the original form of the Sabbath essential, the very day which
was first appointed? How dare we change a day which God himself ordained
from the beginning, until he makes the change as peremptory as the
institution itself? Have we any right to infer, in such an important
matter? Where is the express, divine command,--not precedent, example,
usage, but where is the enactment,--mak
|