children, under the immediate charge and direction of the apostles. This is expressly admitted by Mr. J. (p. 26,) and is indeed too evident to be denied. Nearly thirty years after the ascension of Christ, the great church at Jerusalem, which consisted of "many thousands," and was under the pastoral charge of the holy apostle James, were not a little disgusted when they were informed of Paul, that he had taught the Jews "not to circumcise their children." (Acts xxi. 20, 21.) What does this fact prove? Undoubtedly, that the children of these believing Jewish parents were members with them of the visible church of Christ. Had the Jewish and Christian churches been distinct; had their covenant and ordinances been distinct; and had it been the intention of the apostles forever to separate children from the church of God; they never would have been instrumental in the circumcision of these children. They would as soon have encouraged the converted Gentiles to persist in the worship of their idol gods.

6. If any thing could add to this weight of evidence in favour of the church-membership of children with their believing parents, the testimony of history might be advantageously adduced. It is certain that, from the earliest ages of Christianity to the present time, this sentiment has been constantly and almost universally maintained. It was taught by HERMAS, whose name is mentioned by Paul, (Rom. xvi. 14,) and who is said to have written his Pastor before John wrote his gospel. He saw certain stones, which had been taken out of the deep, and fitted into the building the church; and was told by an angel, that these represented members in the first or infant age. "All infants," says he, "are in honour with the Lord, and are esteemed first of all."*-It was taught by JUSTIN MARTYR, who wrote within about forty years of the apostolick age. "Several persons among us," says he, "of sixty or seventy years old, who were made disciples to Christ in their infancy, do cortinue uncorrupt." These infants must have been made the disciples of Christ, and become members of his church, full twenty years before the death of the apostle John. The same also was taught by IRENEUS. Speaking of Christ, he says, "He passed through every age. For infants he became an infant, that he might sanctify in

In Austin's View of the Church, p. 241. ↑ In TowGOOD, on Inf. Bap. p. 31.

fants." Whether internal or external sanctification is here intended, the membership of infants is strongly im plied.

From these early days down to the present period, we find infant membership constantly and almost universally asserted. It has been admitted by the Greeks, the Latins, the Episcopalians, and by most denominations of Protest ant Dissenters.

To this body of evidence on the subject, Mr. J. finally objects, that our principles and practice are at variance. (P. 31.)-We do not altogether admit, and we need not altogether deny, the charge. To our own Master we stand or fall. When he returns to the faith from which he has departed, and is ready to allow the membership of infants, It will more immediately concern him to inquire, what is the proper treatment of infant members.

SECTION IV.

Baptism is now substituted in the place of Circumcision.

THIS is our third inference from the fact, that the visible church has been under both dispensations the same."Circumcision was anciently an instituted pre-requisite to a regular standing in the visible church." Those who were born members must be circumcised, or be cut off from their people. And those who were proselyted, must be circumcised, before they could be regular members.Notwithstanding the manifest correctness of this position, Mr. J. cannot pass it without cavil. "Circumcision,' says he, "was not pre-requisite to a regular standing in the church; otherwise females were not regular members." (P. 27.)-The force of this objection may be instantly tested, and on his own principles. "Circumcision," he observes, "chiefly signified, that the subject was interested in that covenant which God made with Abraham.” (P. 27.) Had Jewish females, then, no interest in that covenant which God made with their father Abraham? Again, "Circumcision separated the Jews from the Gentile

In WALL'S Hist. Inf. Bap. vol. i. chap. iii.
+ Dr. WORCESTER's Letters, p. CO,

world." (P. 27.) And were not the Jewish females separated from the Gentile world? If Mr. J. will not affirm, in face of all evidence, that Jewish females had no interest in the covenant with Abraham, and no separation from the idolatrous Gentiles, he must admit that the objection we have here considered is perfectly futile. Circumcision was, beyond all controversy, pre-requisite to a regular standing in the church under the former dispensation. Is not baptism pre-requisite to a regular standing in the church under the present dispensation? Will Mr. J. admit any to a regular standing without it?-We have before proved that the church has ever been the same. Since, then, baptism is now, what circumcision formerly was, prerequisite to a regular standing in this church, it is perfectly impossible to avoid concluding, that the former is substituted for the latter.

The same truth may be conclusively argued from the fact established in these pages,* that the covenant with Abraham is still the covenant of the church. Of this covenant, circumcision was formerly the token. This is decided by God himself. (Gen. xvii. 11.) But circumcision is now abolished; and baptism, an ordinance of the same church, and of course under the same covenant, has been instituted. Has not baptism, then, taken the place of circumcision, as the visible token of the covenant with Abraham? In order to determine this inquiry, we must determine whether these ordinances are of similar import. Merely the external ceremony is of no consequence in either. The relation they hold, both to each other and to the covenant, must be determined entirely by their internal signification.

Circumcision, as a token of the covenant, was both a sign and a seal. As a sign,it was emblematical of the circumcision of the heart, or regeneration. "Circumcision is of the. heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter." (Rom. ii. 29.) As a seal, it confirmed "the righteousness of faith," or the covenant of grace. It proclaimed to the world, that all who had voluntarily submitted to it, with suitable feelings of heart, were entitled to every favour promised in this covenant, and especially that their faith was imputed for righteousness. Such was the import of circumcision. Is not that

*See Section ii. Part ü.

✦This is certain from Rom iv. 11, to which the reader is referred.

of baptism precisely similar? This, too, is both a sign and a seal. As a sign, it is an emblem of the washing of regeneration, or the baptism of the Holy Ghost. It therefore signifies the same as circumcision. Does it not also seal the same? Those who submit to this ordi nance with suitable feelings of heart, may be humbly sure that their faith is imputed for righteousness, and that they are entitled to all the blessings of the covenant of grace.We have now seen, that when the ancient token of the covenant with Abraham was abolished, an ordinance was established in the church, and appended to the same covenant, of precisely a similar import. How, then, is it possible to resist the conclusion, that this latter is substituted for the former! How shall we avoid concluding, that baptism is now, what circumcision formerly was, the token of the covenant with Abraham!

સ

To what has been said, Mr. J. objects, that "circumcision, as it was commanded to be administered among the Jews," did not " signify that the subject was regenerated." (P. 27.) Nor have we said it did. We have said that circumcision in the flesh was an emblem of the circumcision of the heart, or regeneration; and that all who voluntarily submitted to this ordinance, according to its true import, must be regenerated persons. This is widely different from saying, that circumcisión certainly signified that the subjects of it were regenerated.-Mr. J. says of baptism, that the subjects of it herein "signify their fellowship with Christ in death and resurrection, and their being washed from sin." (P. 27.) Does, then, baptism certainly signify that all the subjects of it really have "fellowship with Christ," and have been "washed from sin ?" Did it signify this, when administered to Simon Magus ?*

The scriptures clearly countenance the idea, that baptism is substituted in the place of circumcision. Writing to the Philippians, the apostle says, "Beware of the concision," (those persons who lay an exorbitant stress on the rite of circumcision,) "for we"-we who have been baptized-" are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit." (iii. 2, 3.) And to the Colossians he says, "Ye

* Mr. J. represents baptism "as an act of worship." (P. 27.) Is this consistent? In an act of worship, the subject must be active. In baptism, he always is, and is represented to be, entirely passive. 66 Arise, and be baptized.”

are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with him in baptism." (ii. 11, 12.) The force of his language is, "Ye are circumcised, being baptized."--Mr. J. observes respecting this latter passage, that "since the apostle is here speaking of spiritual circumcision and spiritual baptism, both of which had been received by the Colossians," it is impossible to infer from it, "that external baptism has come in the place of external circumcision." (P. 28.)-We admit, that the apostle is here speaking of spiritual circumcision and spiritual baptism; and he represents them to be the same, Since, then, these two ordinances are spiritually the same, and since the one was instituted in the church on the removal of the other; we see no difficulty in drawing a conclusive inference, that the one is now substituted in the place of the other,

That the primitive fathers believed and taught the substitution of baptism in the room of circumcision, will be abundantly evident from the following quotations.

JUSTIN MARTYR, "We have not received this carnal circumcision, but the spiritual circumcision; and we have received it by baptism. It is allowed to all persons"-infants and adults" to receive it in the same way."*

CYPRIAN. "Christ has given us baptism, the spiritual circumcision,"t

AUSTIN. "We may make an estimate how much baptism avails infants, by the circumcision which God's people formerly received."

BASIL. "A Jew does not delay circumcision, because of the threatening, that every soul that is not circumcised the eighth day shall be cut off from his people; and dost thou put off the circumcision made without hands, which is performed in baptism, when thou hearest our Lord himself say, Verily, verily I say unto you, except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God ??'*

*In Dr. WORCESTER'S Letters to Dr. BALDWIN, p. 118, The dates of the fathers here quoted are as follow:-JUSTIN wrote within about 40, CYPRIAN within 150, and AUSTIN, BASIL, and CHRYSOSTOM, within 270 years of the apostolick age. + In REED's Apology, p. 274,

In BOSTWICK's Discourse on Inf. Bap. p. 25.

This application of the phrase "circumcision made without hands”—and a similar one in the succeeding quotation from CHRYSOSTOM, show how the fathers understood the apostle in Col. ii. 11, 12.