ment several things essential to its validity are taken for granted, which will appear upon examination to be opposed to facts.

It is assumed that circumcision was to the posterity of Abraham, no less than to himself, a seal of the righteousness of faith. The groundlessness of this position will readily become apparent. Circumcision was a "token" or indication that its subjects were interested in the covenant blessings promised to the Jewish nation as such. It was, indeed, an indispensable condition of enjoying those blessings, Gen. 17: 14. But that it was ever considered as being, in the case of all who received it, a seal or attestation of the acceptance of their faith as a justifying righteousness, is certainly an unwarrantable assumption. Connection with the Jewish people was in all cases regarded as a sufficient reason for its application. With Abraham it was otherwise. He had exercised faith in the divine promises, his faith had been accepted, and in attestation of that acceptance he received in behalf of himself, his household, and his posterity, a rite by which they were to be designated as a community enjoying the special favor of God. The peculiarity of his case is obvious. It is, indeed, directly stated in the remark, "He received the sign of circumcision," i. e. he did not submit to it as an institution already in existence; he received it directly from the hand of God for the purpose of transmitting it to his posterity. It is worthy of notice that circumcision, in the sense in which it is here called "a seal," was received but once, and that by Abraham in its original institution. He received it, moreover, as "a seal of the righteousness of a faith which he had, yet being uncircumcised." The apostle thus not only confines his description to Abraham, but directly contrasts his case with that of his posterity. Comp. vs. 10, 11.

It is also assumed that baptism is a seal of the righteousness of faith, or an attestation on the part of God that the subject possesses a faith that is counted to him for righteousness. A sufficient refutation of this assumption is contained in the fact that no such use is ever in the New Testament ascribed to any external rite. Baptism is chiefly a profession on the part of its subjects of an interest in the gospel. No argument could, therefore, be deduced from the circumstance that circumcision is called

a seal in verse 11, even were the language applicable to Abraham's posterity in general, no less than to himself. Another position assumed in the argument under consideration is, that circumcision and baptism, on the supposition that they may be regarded as in some respects seals of the same thing, were designed to be applied in all cases to subjects of the same character. Now should we acknowledge the premise in this reasoning to be correct, the conclusion would by no means naturally follow. Were we to admit that circumcision was to the Jewish infant, while as yet he was alike unable to appreciate the blessing of justification, and incapable of faith, a seal or attestation of his justification by faith, it would be evident that it was not on this account that the rite was administered in infancy, but for very different reasons; we should naturally infer that notwithstanding the manifest incongruity involved in the case, there were other things pertaining to the Jewish dispensation which rendered such a custom proper. And our only appropriate inquiry would be, Do those other reasons exist with respect to Christian baptism? In other words, in seeking an answer to the question, Who are to be regarded as the proper subjects of each institution?-we should naturally look at its general object, the place it was designed to occupy in the divine economy, and the distinctive nature of the dispensation with which it originated. And prosecuting the inquiry on these grounds, we should legitimately be led to this conclusion,-As the Jewish economy had respect to the natural descendants of Israel as such, and was designed to keep them a distinct people, circumcision, the appointed badge of nationality, would, as might be expected, be applied, irrespectively of age or circumstances, to all the members of the nation. But as the kingdom of Christ is mainly spiritual in its nature and design, acknowledging as its subjects those of whatever nation, and those only, who become regenerated, the rite of recognition. would naturally be restricted to such. It would be singular reasoning, truly, to infer that because circumcision was administered to all who actually became members of the Jewish commonwealth, therefore baptism, the rite of public recognition in the kingdom of Christ, should be administered to those who are not entitled to membership.

VOL. XI.-NO. XLIII.

29

The several positions assumed in the argument stated above are thus shown to be equally untenable and fallacious. The argument utterly fails, if placed on the issue of either; and yet they are all essential to its validity. Not one of them can be sustained; and yet not one can be omitted without rendering the others useless, and leaving no ground for the argument.

But it was not our design in calling attention to this passage, to prove that it is silent with respect to the baptism of infants. It is especially deserving of examination, as containing a direct and decisive refutation of the principles of pædobaptism.

The apostle, having stated in chap. 1, the grand theme of his epistle, to wit, that the gospel is "the power of God to salvation to every one that believeth, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek," in chapters 2 and 3, establishes the position that the only circumcision known among Christians is spiritual. He admits that circumcision as practised by the Jews was not without its advantages. It answered the end for which it was instituted. It secured the enjoyment of blessings by which the descendants of Israel were distinguished from other nations, particularly those resulting from their being favored with the oracles of God. Chap. 3: 1–3. We call attention to this fact, to show that the apostle is speaking of circumcision as it was anciently really available; not of its external observance merely, in distinction from its efficacy or uses. He maintains that, whatever its benefits under the former dispensation, it is, as far as the distinguishing blessing of the gospel, justification before God, is concerned, of no avail. On the principles of the gospel, "circumcision that is outward in the flesh" is a nullity. The only circumcision recognized is "that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter, whose praise is not of men, but of God." Chap. 2: 25-28.

In chap. 3: 22-30, the apostle, in pursuance of his general purpose, remarks, that "the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ is unto all and upon all them that believe; for there is no difference;" that "there is one God who justifies the circumcision and the uncircumcision alike by faith." He then, in chap. 4, appeals in confirmation of his position to the case of Abraham. And he shows not only that the ground on which he was

accepted was independent of the law of circumcision, but that he sustains no relation to the Christian church, which can be identified with that law. He was not justified by works; but it is said, "He believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness," vs. 1-3. After quoting a passage from the thirty-second Psalm, in which the blessing of gratuitous justification is brought to view, the apostle inquires, "Cometh this blessedness, then, on the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also?—for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was it then reckoned? When he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.' It thus appears that he was justified not only by faith, but altogether independently of circumcision. He even received the sign of circumcision, as Dr. Barnes observes, "in consequence of his being justified by faith; as an attestation of the fact that he had been previously accepted; "a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while living in the state of uncircumcision."

But what is to be inferred from these facts? What was the design of God in observing this order of antecedence and sequence? Why was Abraham justified while in uncircumcision? and why did circumcision itself become a proof of this fact? Mark the answer of the apostle,"that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also; and that he might be the father of the circumcision, i. e. of the Jews (comp. chap. 2: 30) to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham which he had yet being uncircumcised," who are related to him, not on the ground that they have been circumcised, and are connected with his natural descendants, but because they resemble him in the possession of a faith which has no connection with circumcision. The apostle thus shows that in the kingdom of Christ, Abraham sustains precisely the same relation to Jews and Gentiles. Simple faith is sufficient to authorize the Gentiles to claim him as their father. And the only relation recognized by the gospel, which even his natural descendants sustain to him, results from the same cause; and this is independent of the institution of circumcision, for the obvious reason that

that institution had not been introduced, when the ground of this relationship was established.

In confirmation of this position, the apostle in vs. 13-18 appeals to the promise by which Abraham was formally constituted the father of the faithful (comp. vs. 16, 17), and shows that this had no connection with the law enjoining circumcision. "For it was not through the law that the promise was to Abraham, or to his seed, that he should be heir of the world," or that "in him all the families of the earth should be blessed," (comp. ver. 17,) "but through the righteousness of faith." By the law to which allusion is here had, and which is contrasted with the gratuitous promise which Abraham received respecting his spiritual seed, is probably meant the ritual and other observances enjoined on him and his posterity. Circumcision, in the time of the apostle, was usually spoken of as belonging to the law of Moses-see Acts 15: 1-5; Gal. 5: 2-6; and the law was represented as in this particular extending back in its requirements to the time of Abraham, John 7: 22, 23. Hence it is entirely natural for the apostle, in speaking of Abraham in respect to his circumcision, to represent him as interested in the law, and to place in contrast with the claim to the divine favor which he might be supposed to have acquired by obedience to its requisitions, his righteousness by faith. The promise was not through the law, inasmuch as it had been given to Abraham, and the relation between him and his spiritual seed which it contemplated, accordingly established (comp. vs. 10-12) before the law in any of its observances was introduced. "The covenant," says Dr. Barnes, commenting on ver. 13, "was made before the law of circumcision was given, and long before the law of Moses (comp. Gal. 3: 16-18), and was independent of both."

"For if they who are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise rendered of no effect," ver. 14. The law made the enjoyment of its promised blessings conditional. It prescribed, for example, that "the uncircumcised man-child should be cut off from his people," Gen. 17: 14. Now if compliance with certain conditions of the law are necessary for inheriting the promise, then faith is clearly insufficient, and consequently" void;” and the promise is ineffectual for the obvious reason that the