from any similarity which may exist in some other respects between them.

Thus, the various efforts which are made to make it appear that infants are included in the commission for baptism, are altogether ineffectual. It is plain, after all, that it is limited todisciples, or believers.

CHAPTER V.

Circumcision shown to be of perpetual obligation to the Jews, and hence Baptism cannot be considered as a substitute.

It is a common opinion that the rite of circumcision was annulled, when the new dispensation was introduced, and that baptism was appointed in its stead. But this opinion has been adopted without scriptural authority. The notion that baptism is a substitute for circumcision, is one of the strongest arguments employed for the baptism of infants. If this notion therefore shall appear to be unauthorized, it will tend very much to overthrow that cause; it will, in fact, subvert its main pillar. This, then, is a point which deserves to be seriously considered.

Some may start at the idea that circumcision was never abrogated to the Jews, and think it will lead to horrible consequences. But let us patiently examine the matter.

Circumcision was certainly in full and approved use among the Jews at the commencement of our Lord's ministry, when baptism was first appointed: and yet no notice is taken of this being a substitute for that ancient rite, or of its ever being designed to be.

Circumcision continued, also, in approved use during the whole of our Lord's ministry, in which he was continually making and baptizing disciples. And it was in use when the final commission was given to teach and baptize all nations; and yet all is silent on the subject of its abrogation, or discontinuance, and of the appointment of baptism in its stead, as a seal of the same covenant.

It was, moreover, in use on the memorable day of Pentecost; and yet Peter said, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins," without saying a word about the new seal's coming in the place of the ald: he never intimated that they were no longer to circumcise

their children.

It was in use when Peter had the vision respecting the calling of the Gentiles, and actually went (being convinced and overpowered by a miraculous vision, and by the express order

of God) to Cornelius and his friends, for the purpose of instructing them in the things of the gospel; and yet there is not even a suggestion respecting the change of the seals, and the discontinuance of circumcision to the Jews.

It was in use when the brethren went up from the church at Antioch to Jerusalem, on the question about circumcising the Gentiles, to inquire whether that church had given direction to the teachers who came out from them to impose circumcision and the Mosaick rites on the Gentiles; which must have been seventeen years after the conversion of Paul, as appears from his epistle to the Galatians; and yet there is not a word said about the supposed substitution, or of the abolition of circumcision among the Jews: when if any such thing had taken place, and was known, the occasion required that it should be stated, and the principle of substitution defended; and when the bare statement of it would have for ever put to silence the question. respecting the circumcision of the Gentiles.

All which would have been required was to state that the Lord Jesus had abrogated the rite of circumcision, and appointed baptism as a new seal of the same covenant-a seal that was common to all nations, and one which had actually been in use a number of vears, both among Jews and Gentiles; and hence that there was no necessity for circumcising the Gentiles; yea, that the idea was palpably absurd. Moreover, that it was both unnecessary and absurd to continue circumcision among the Jews themselves, seeing they were, from the very first, in possession of the new seal. This, I say, would have been all which was required to terminate this dispute and silence the Judaizers.

Or, at most, it would have been sufficient to say, that although circumcision was permitted to the Jews, notwithstanding it had become obsolete, on account of their prejudices and strenuous adherence to their ancient usages; and notwithstanding a new seal or token of the covenant had been introduced; it was perfectly unnecessary and unwarrantable to impose circumcision on the Gentiles, who had never been under the Mosaick law, and who, by the express appointment of Jesus Christ, were likewise in possession of the new seal.

Now I say that what is contained in the one or the other of these statements, would have been amply sufficient to settle that whole controversy at once, and for ever.

And had the principle been true, that circumcision was disannulled and baptism substituted in its room, the occasion imperiously demanded such an explanation and disclosure. To neglect this argument was not only to act inconsistently, and even dishonestly, in keeping back a plain and important principle which

unost intimately respected the peace and welfare of the church; but, to lay aside the exercise of common sense. Who can suppose, when so much interest was taken in the question, and when so many insisted that the Gentiles should be circumcised and keep the law; and when there was so much argument and disputing in that venerable assembly of apostles, elders and brethren, that a profound silence would have been observed respecting a principle, which, if true, would have put an immediute end to the controversy. An expert Pedobaptist would have decided the cause in two minutes; yea, in one; so that no one could have had a face to urge the imposition of circumcision on the Gentiles.

And yet no one appears to have thought of this overpowering argument. No intimation is given that the supposed change had taken place in the seals, and that circumcision was abolished to the Jews. Here, I say, in the very place, and on the very occasion, when this subject could not, from the nature of the circumstances, have failed to be discussed and plainly stated, if it had been real, not a tittle is uttered. What then is the le

gitimate conclusion? It is, that the sentiment that baptism had taken the place of circumcision, and that circumcision was no longer obligatory on the Jews, was not known, and was not true.

After the church at Jerusalem had expressly denied giving the teachers in question any direction to impose circumcision on the Gentiles, and much had been said in the council for and against the measure, an inspired decree was delivered by the apostles, in which the Gentiles were expressly exempted from the practice of circumcision, and the ceremonial rites of the law; which decree implies, at least, that the Jews considered themselves bound to continue this institution.

It is conceded that they appear generally to have thought that the rites of Moses were also obligatory; which were, in reality, abrogated by the death of Christ, and therefore not binding, although their use was tolerated for a season. This matter, probably, was not fully cleared up, till Paul wrote the epistle to the Hebrews, and till the first covenant "which waxed old and was ready to vanish away," was completely broken in the final destruction of Jerusalem, and the dispersion of the nation. This circumstance, however, does not materially affect the argument.

Their conceiving that the observance of the ancient rites appointed by Moses was necessary, as well as circumcision, is no evidence that they knew any thing about this supposed change in the seals; nor is it any evidence that circumcision and these rites are to be placed on the same footing, so that if

one was, in fact, abrogated, the other was also, although the use of both was permitted for a season. For it is plain that the abrogation of these rites did not annul circumcision; because "it was not of Moses; but of the fathers." It was not a part of the ceremonial law, although certaiu regulations were made by Moses relative to its observance. But it belonged to another covenant" which the law could not disannul." The abrogation of the law, therefore, did not abrogate this rite, as originally instituted to Abraham, any more than the covenant to which it belonged. The ceremonial law given by Moses might be done away, and yet the covenant with Abraham continue, together with its appointed token, to those for whom it was designed, viz. the natural descendants of that patriarch. And such was the fact. Therefore this rite, and the Mosaick ritual, were not placed on a parallel footing.

Hence, the Jews' conceiving, for a time, that they were bound to observe this law, after it had, in fact, ceased to be obligatory, does not affect the subject of circumcision, which belonged to another covenant, that has not, and cannot pass away. Their misapprehension respecting the continuance of the Mosaick rites, does not imply that they were under any mistake as to the continuanee of circumcision; nor does it serve to show that they knew any thing about a substitute for that ordinance. But the total silence above noticed shows that they did not.

Had they continued circumcision merely on the same principle with the rites of Moses, the second argument above stated would have met the case in question, and perfectly silenced the plea for the circumcision of the Gentiles. And they, surely, would not have failed to employ it, when it was so appropriate, and so urgently required.

As to the Mosaick rites themselves, no one pretends that there was a substitute appointed. They all, of course, terminated, as types, in Christ, to whom they pointed, and in the spirituality of his kingdom. Had there been a change, and others appointed in their stead, the case would have, evidently, required the mention of it. Its not being mentioned, is, of itself, a conclusive argument that no such thing existed.

So in the other case, no mention being made of the change of circumcision to baptism, when the occasion, in every view, imperiously required it, shows that it was not a reality.

Nor do the following words of Paul, Gal. v. 2, 3, viz. "If ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing; for I testify to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law," present any difficulty. For it is evident that he