་་

certainly, of such promises as are actually recorded, that Abraham and the other believing patriarchs looked for the heavenly country. That they did look for it, we know; and it is equally sure, from the apostle's language in the eleventh chapter of the Hebrews, formerly quoted-that they founded their expectations on divine promise :'By faith Abraham sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise: for," -on the ground of that promise surely- "he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God." Heb. xi. 9, 10. The hope of the heavenly Canaan, then, was founded on the promise of the earthly, understood as typical, and comprehensive of higher blessings than the literal terms imported; and, at the same time, on the promise, "I will be thy God," which also, as we have seen, included spiritual and eternal blessings.Indeed the whole of the gospel revelation was then, and for ages afterwards, under the vail of figurative language, and of typical rites, objects, and events. To have given, in clear and explicit terms, the full promise of the eternal inheritance, would not have been consistent with the divine scheme of gradual development, nor with the fact of "life and immortality being brought to light by Jesus Christ." But that the promise was given, is manifest from the apostolic representation, and from his saying elsewhere, respecting those patriarchs who, though they "sojourned," in the land of Canaan, received "no inheritance in it, no not so much as to set their foot on," that on their following each other, by death, to heaven, "through faith and patience they inherited the primises." -I might show the spiritual meaning of the phraseology in Gen. xvii. in some other particulars; but I am desirous to confine myself to such as are expressly interpreted in the New Testament scriptures.

From these considerations, it appears to me passing strange," that this should be the covenant (supposing it a distinct one from the rest) selected for degradation to a mere covenant of temporal promises to the natural offspring! The promises which it contains are evidently the same in substance with those given at previous appear

ances, only more amply unfolded: and that there is not the least necessity for considering every sucessive appearance as a distinct covenant, Mr. Maclean himself may be cited as authority for, after intimating the propriety of following what he alleges to be the scriptural representation of the case, and taking up the communications recorded in the 12th, 15th, and 17th chapters of Genesis, as so many distinct covenants, he yet admits that the covenant confirmed by oath in the twenty-second chapter, at a period still later, was in substance the same as that in the twelfth, the earliest of all. But if we are warranted in considering the earliest and the latest as the same, we cannot surely be very far wrong in so considering the others that were intermediate.

It was with this covenant, then, which the apostle so explicitly declares to have been the covenant of grace, "confirmed before of God in Christ,"-that the rite of circumcision was connected.-There are some, however, of our Baptist brethren, who readily admit the spiritual nature of the Abrahamic covenant, but declare themselves incapable of perceiving the legitimacy and conclusiveness of the inference we deduce from it, and therefore regard all our reasonings in support of it, so far as the subject of baptism is concerned, as thrown away. This has always appeared to me very surprising. If the connection between parents and children, recognised in that ordinance, had belonged only to the old or Sinai covenant, and if the ordinance of circumcision, instead of being "of the fathers," had been exclusively "of Moses." pertaining solely to that temporary dispensation of which he was the mediator, we should then have seen a good reason why both the connection itself, and the ordinance that marked it, should have ceased together, when the dispensation came to a close with which they were associated.—But if circumcision was not of Moses, but of the fathers;”—if it originally pertained to a covenant that never decayeth or waxeth old ;" and if, under that covenant, children were connected with their parents in the application of the sign and seal;-then we must insist upon it, that the burden of proof rests upon our opponents. They demand of us express precept for our practice. We are better en

66

titled to demand of them express precept for theirs. If the covenant made with Abrahanı be indeed God's everlasting covenant of grace,—and if the sign and seal of this covenant was administered by God's command to the children of those who professed the faith of Abraham, and to them in their turn became, as it had been to him, a seal of the righteousness of faith"-(and who can deny that it was such to Isaac and Jacob, the " heirs with him of the same promise?" and if to them, why not to other believers ?)—if these things, I say, be so, then where, we ask, is any change in the constitution of the covenant in this respect pointed out? When were children excluded, and by what law? Let an express repealing statute be shown us, and we will immediately relinquish our practice. The alteration of an old constitution, or the setting aside of an old law, as was formerly hinted, requires an express precept, as much as the appointment of a constitution or law entirely new. To speak of the abolition, tacit or express, of the old economy, the Mosaic dispensation, is nothing to the purpose: because the apostle assures us, that the covenant of circumcision, so far from being a part of the law, and partaking of its temporary and evanescent nature, was a covenant which existed long before it, which could not be disannulled either by its introduction or its cessation, but which continues to this day. By confounding this covenant with the law, and including any part of its gracious provisions in "that which decayed, and waxed old, and vanished away," you set the law" against the promises of God," and throw into confusion and inconclusiveness the simple and beautiful reasoning of the apostle.-That the particular rite is changed we have abundant evidence; and satisfactory reasons for the change might be assigned.* But of any

*Besides its import as denoting the "putting off the body of the sins of the flesh," circumcision was, in all probability, intended as a sign that the seed, in whom all nations were to be blessed, should come from the loins of Abraham. Of this it was a significant emblem and remembrancer. The promise of the Messiah was restricted to the line of descent by Isaac. In this line, therefore, it became a memorial of the promise that Messiah should be made flesh amongst them. And I doubt not that, in other lines also of descent from Abraham, this rite, originally, by the command of God, administered to all his family, had its influence, in a general way, in preserving the idea and expectation of the promised seed. If this be well

alteration as to the admission of children with their pa rents to the sign and seal and blessing of the covenant, we are destitute of evidence entirely. Nothing whatever can be produced in the form of a direct repeal; and as to the inferential reasoning which has been employed to set aside the previously existing connection, we shall have occasion to examine it in the next section of this treatise.

I am aware, indeed, how frequently and how confidently it has been alleged, that the words of institution, as they have been improperly called (I say improperly, because baptism was not at that time first instituted, but had been practised before,) involved a repeal, by declaring that none are to be baptized but such as are capable of being taught. The well known words are: "Go ye, therefore, and teach (or disciple) all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." Matt. xxviii. 19, 20.

The reply to this is simple and satisfactory; although I am sufficiently aware, how strongly a certain habit of mind, in viewing a particular passage, tends to prevent the clear perception of the validity of any reasoning, directed against the sense thus habitually and systematically affixed to it. Suppose the ordinance of circumcision had been to continue, and the command had run in these terms," Go ye, therefore, and disciple all nations, circumcising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things," &c. Had such language been used, we should have known that children were to be the subjects of the prescribed rite, as well as their parents: the previously existing practice would have ascertained this. Now, should we have been sensible, even with this knowledge, of the smallest impropriety, or inconsistency in the founded, we at once perceive a good reason why circumcision should be abolished when this seed came; and why another rite should be substituted in its place, which continued to signify as expressively, or more so, the "putting off the body of the sins of the flesh," while it was not at all significant of that part of the meaning of the former symbol, which had now received its fulfilment.

use of such language? Would it have appeared to us, in even the slightest degree, contradictory or incongruous? Would it have been understood by the apostles, as necessarily excluding children? Would they certainly have inferred from it, that although the same rite was to continue, there was to be a change in the subjects of it ?—that none now were to be circumcised but those who were capable of immediate instruction in the will of Christ, and practical compliance with it? No: there is nothing in the terms of the commission that could at all have led them to such a conclusion. They would, without hesitation, have gone on to circumcise children with their parents as formerly, teaching the parents the mind and will of Christ, and charging them to instruct their rising offspring. And if a commission to circumcise, given in these terms, would not have been understood as necessarily excluding children, it can never be shown that a commission in the same terms to baptize must have been so understood. The practical evidence that the apostles actually did not so understand it, will be afterwards considered. In the mean time, pernit me to observe, we have, in a parallel passage of scripture, most satisfactory evidence of the justness of these remarks. I refer to Gal. v. 2-5. "Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace."-In the 27th verse of the third chapter of the same Epistle, the apostle says:-" For as many of you as have been baptized unto Jesus Christ (or, 'ye, whosoever have been baptized unto Jesus Christ") have put on Christ." From this expression it has been very confidently argued, that adults only were baptized, because of "putting on Christ" adults only were capable. -Now, let this principle of interpretation, or of inference, he applied to the passage quoted from the fifth chapter. It is an address to adults :-it expresses things of which adults only were capable. Are we, then, to infer from this, that adults only were circumcised? We certainly ought, on the same principle on which we infer, from the