other, that adults alone were baptized. There is precisely the same ground in the former case, as there is in the latter. Yet we know, that in the latter the inference would be contrary to fact; for nothing can be more certain than that, when Gentile converts were circumcised, it was, in conformity with Jewish practice, along with their children. A principle of criticism, therefore, which, applied in one case, leads to a conclusion at variance with known facts, cannot with any fairness, nay, cannot without the risk, and more than the risk, of mistake and error, be applied in another.-The truth is, that the strict application of such a principle to language of this general kind, would lead us into innumerable absurdities. I may here, by the way, take notice of a difficulty which has been suggested, from the passage which I have just quoted, in regard to the import of circumcision, and its identity under the one dispensation with baptism under the other. How, it has been asked, should circumcision exclude from the grace and blessings of the gospel covenant, if it was connected with that covenant, and signified the same thing with baptism?*-But the moment we recollect to what desciption of doctrine the apostle is here opposing himself, the solution of the difficulty is at once apparent. It is the doctrine of those who taught the Gentile brethren, that "except they were circumcised after the manner of Moses, they could not be saved;"—that "it was necessary," namely, to their salvation, "to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses." Acts xv. 1, 5, 24.-Now when, in such a connection, the apostle says, "If ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing," it is equivalent to his saying, "If ye embrace this doctrine, Christ shall profit you nothing." This is clear from the circumstance, that being circumcised in the one verse corresponds to "being justified by the law" in the other in the one he says, "If ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing;"-in the other, "Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law."-He reminds them, therefore, that if they embraced this doctrine, they renounced the grace of the * See Maclean, Rev. p. 21. gospel; and that if they persisted in seeking justification by circumcision and the law, they should bear in mind what the law required of them in order to their attaining their end; that nothing would suffice short of their doing the whole law," yielding to it a sinless obedience. -That such is the import of the phrase "if ye be circumcised," is further evident from the case of Abraham and the original circumcision. Abraham was circumcised: but surely "Christ" did not therefore "profit him nothing;"-" he did not fall from grace." So far from it, that his circumcision was the seal to him of the righteousness, not of works, but of faith-not of law, but of grace. -The Gentile Christians "being circumcised," therefore, was not their mere submission to the rite, but their dependence up it, in connection with the law of Moses, for justification: and no person, acquainted with the spirit of the apostle's writings on this subject, will question the position, that, in similar circumstances, he would have said the very same thing of baptism, that he says of circumcision. He who now trusts for acceptance to his baptism, as effectually falls from Christ and from grace, as he who trusted of old to his circumcision. Before closing this section, I may offer a few further strictures on the reasonings of some of the opponents of pædobaptism, on one of the leading topics discussed in it, -the true nature of the covenant of circumcision, and the import of the rite as connected with it; strictures, which I have reserved for this place, in order to avoid giving a disproportionate extension to one of the links in the chain of my own argument, by which the reader might have been in danger of losing sight of the connection. They will, however, serve to give further confirmation to the general principles which it has been my endeavor to establish. Of the covenant in Gen. xvii. Mr. Maclean thus writes, contrasting it with the promise in the 12th chapter: "The first promise made to Abraham, Gen. xii. 3. is termed' THE COVENANT which was confirmed before of God in Christ,' Gal. iii. 17. and contained a promise of blessing all nations, i. e. all Abraham's spiritual or believing seed of Jews and Gentiles. But the covenant of circumcision did not include the Gentiles, but was a peculiar covenant with the natural posterity of Abraham, who were to receive the token of it in their flesh in infancy, as a people separated unto God from all others, and of whom Messiah was to spring. Christian baptism, therefore, is not founded on the covenant of circumcision, which was peculiar to the natural seed of Abraham: but on that covenant which extends the blessing of Abraham to his spiritual seed of all nations. Accordingly, when the . ancient covenant of promise came to be actually ratified in the blood of Christ, the peculiar covenant of circumcision with the fleshly seed of Abraham was set aside, and baptism was appointed to be administered to all, whether Jews or Gentiles, who appeared to be his spiritual seed by faith in Christ, but to none else." Review p. 104. I must here be permitted again to marvel, at the dimness of vision, and the confusion of ideas, which the admission of a false principle, and attachment to an erroneous system, can produce in even the acutest and most discerning minds. The promise of blessing to “all nations," is in the above extract admitted to mean, of blessing to "all Abraham's spiritual or believing seed of Jews and Gentiles;" and yet that covenant is affirmed "not to have included the Gentiles," but to have been "a peculiar covenant with the natural posterity of Abraham," the very terms of which are expressly applied by the apostle himself to the spiritual seed of all nations," for thus, as we have seen, he explains the promise "a father of many nations have I made thee."-" Christian baptism," says Mr. M'L. "is not founded in the covenant of circumcision." True; if the covenant of circumcision was indeed only a covenant of temporal blessings, peculiar to the natural offspring of Abraham. In that case, it was set aside;" and Christian baptism does belong to a different covenant from that to which circumcision was annexed. But if, on the contrary, we have succeeded in showing, that the 66 covenant of circumcision" was indeed a covenant of spiritual as well as temporal blessings to the spiritual seed of Abraham, then have we not here Mr. Maclean's concession, that, instead of being "set aside," it still continues, and that Christian baptism is founded in it, and holds 66 a similar place now, in connection with the same covenant, to that held of old by circumcision? This shows how much depends on a right view of the covenant in Gen. xvii. with which circumcision was connected. a : as a But the amiable and excellent author of EUGENIO AND EPENETUs," takes quite a different view of this covenant of circumcision from Mr. Maclean. He admits its spirituality and when circumcision is denominated “the token of the covenant," he considers the phrase of equivalent import with that other phrase used by the apostle, seal of the righteousness of faith.""It was," says he, "the token of a covenant made with Abraham " believer, and essentially connected with that righteousness which was imputed to him by faith. Hence the recollection of this covenant brought along with it the recollection of that faith in connection with which it was formed. And whatever could be properly denominated a token of a covenant founded on a righteousness imputed by faith, might, with equal propriety, be termed a sca!, or standing memorial of that righteousness of faith with which this covenant was connected." Page 55.-I perfectly concur with Mr. Innes in the view which he gives, and in support of which he, in my opinion, successfully argues, of the meaning of the phrase "a seal to the righteousness of faith!" as signifying, not a seal of the individual of personal justification, but a seal or symbolical certification, and standing memorial, of the grand doctrine of justification by faith,—of which the justification of Abraham was, both to Jew and Gentile, the pattern or exemplar. But this doctrine belongs to the new and everlasting covenant, and constitutes its fundamental article. Mr. Maclean, in the passage above cited, by affirming the connection of circumcision with the temporal covenant only, indirectly admits that, if it had been connected with the other, there would have been some ground for the inferences drawn by us as to Christian baptism ;-for he makes the difference between circumcision and baptism to consist in the former being connected with the old, and temporary covenant and the latter with the new, spiritual, and everlasting one. -Mr. Innes, on the contrary, connects circumcision with the spiritual covenant, that covenant according to which Abraham and all believers since have been justified by faith. But he is one of those referred to above, who, granting the premises, do not perceive the legitimacy of the conclusion.-Baptists have sometimes said to pædobaptists, "You cannot be right; you differ so much amonst yourselves in your views of the subject?" They had as well be quiet on that score. It is but "foolish talking," on both sides. Our sole inquiry should be after truth and duty. If one view of a subject be true, it is not the less true that another has been held. Mr. Cox embraces Mr. Maclean's second view of the covenant of circumcision. Whether he ever held the first I cannot say. But surely, never was there published to the world a statement more thoroughly at issue, in every point, with that of the apostle, than the following. After quoting the terms of the covenant, in Gen. xvii. 2—14,— for which see the preceding pages,-he thus comments : "Let a person unbiassed by any previous system, put into ordinary language the blessings covenanted in the above recited paragraph; let him impartially state its entire import. Would he not inevitably give the following interpretation? Circumcision was the sign of a covenant with Abraham and his posterity, denoting that it was the divine purpose to increase his family to a remarkable degree, that they should become a great nation, and even be diffused far over the face of the earth; to manifest a peauliar and unalterable regard to his family as their God, by the ample fulfilment of the agreement which he now condescended to form with their illustrious ancestor, and which stipulated their extraordinary multiplication;-and to give them Canaan for an inheritance. All persons, however attached to the family, whether as children or servants, were to undergo the prescribed rite, in order to distinguish them from the surrounding nations, and to evince that they belonged to the people whom God had especially chosen. This token of association with Abraham, and participation of his privileges, was, it appears, bestowed, irrespectively of personal character, conduct, or faith; for the purchased slave received it as well as the home-born child, whether a believer in the God of Abraham or not, and simply as a part of his domestic estab |