Abraham, three promises were given to him. First, a numerous posterity which was fulfilled in the letter, in the nation of Israel. It was fulfilled in the spirit, by the divine constitution, that makes all believers the children of Abraham. The unbelieving Jews were Abraham's children as to the flesh, yet there is a sense in which Jesus denies that they were the children of Abraham. The second promise was to be a God to him and his seed, which was fulfilled in the letter by his protection of Israel in Egypt, his delivering of them from bondage,-his taking them into covenant at Sinai,-and all his subsequent dealings with them in their generations, till they were cast off by their rejection of Christ. This promise is fulfilled in the spirit, by God's being a God to all believers, and to them alone, Rom. iv. 11, 12, in a higher sense than he was to Israel, Jer. xxxi. 33. The third promise was of the land of Canaan, fulfilled in the letter to Israel, and in the spirit fulfilled to the true Israel in the possession of the heavenly inheritance. In accordance with this double sense of the promises of this covenant, the kingdom of God in Israel, with its officers, laws, worship, &c. is a visible model of the invisible kingdom of Christ. The typical ordinances, which exhibited the truths of the gospel in figure, form one of the most conclusive evidences of Christianity; and present spiritual things to the mind in so definite and striking a manner, that they add the greatest lustre to the doctrines of grace. What a striking emblem of the incarnation have we in God's dwelling in the tabernacle and temple! How clearly do we see substitution and imputation in the laying on of hands on the victim! How blind must they be, who do not see the atonement by the blood of Christ, in the sacrifices of Israel!

"This appears to me to be the only view of the covenant of Abraham, that will suit every thing said of it in the word of God. That it has a letter and a spirit, is true, and analogous to every part of the Old Testament." Carson and Cox on Baptism, p. 344.

[NOTE E.]

The following remarks are from the pen of Rev. George S. Faber. "Circumcision and baptism are two sacramental signs of exactly the same import. They must, therefore, to all affective purposes, be mutually the same with each other: For a sign being altogether arbitrary, if it had pleased God to shadow out regeneration by a hundred different signs, all these hundred signs would still constitute but a single sacrament." Sermons,

Vol. i. Sermon ix.

Dr. Wardlaw supposes, that 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 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 expressly, or more so, the "putting off the body of the sins of the flesh," while it was not all significant of that part of the meaning of the former symbol, which had now received its fulfilment. Dissertation on Infant Baptism, p. 28.

[NOTE F.]

"The rite of Infant Baptism," says Dr. Woods, "manifestly corresponds with the natural relation between parents and children. It is not enough to say that there is no inconsistency between the two things, and that the relation of parents and children can afford no objection

against Infant Baptism. For nothing is more evident than that this rite has a perfect suitableness to the relation of parents and children. This relation is of such a nature and attended with such circumstances, that Infant Baptism becomes obviously, and in the highest degree, just and proper. I acknowledge that this argument does not, by itself, prove Infant Baptism to have been appointed by God, and to be obligatory upon Christians. But it shows at least, that, if God was pleased to appoint it, the appointment must be regarded as having a perfect fitness and propriety." Lectures on Infant Baptism, p. 26.

Some of the wiser heathen nations, instructed only by nature and reason, were led to practice a rite resembling infant baptism, "It was the custom of the Romans, on the ninth day from the child's birth (which was called the lustrical, or day of purification) for its friends and rela- . tives to bring it to the temple, and before the altars of the gods to give it a name, and recommend it to the protection of some tutelar deity." A ceremony of the like nature was also common among the Greeks. See Middleton's Life of Cicero, Vol, i. p. 6.

[NOTE G.]

Lightfoot, after having established the fact of Proselyte baptism, in his Hora Hebraicæ on Matt. iii. 6, concludes his argument with the following pertinent remarks. "Hence we see the reason why, in the New Testament, the subjects of baptism are not prescribed by a more explicit rule. The Anabaptists object, It is not commanded that infants should be baptized; therefore they should not be baptized. But I say, It is not prohibited that infants should be baptized; therefore they should be baptized. And the reason is plain; for since the baptism of children was familiarly known and very often practised in the Jewish church in the admission of proselytes, there was no need that it should be confirmed by an express precept, when baptism came to be an evangelical sacrament. For Christ took baptism into his hands, and into evangelical. use as he found it; with this difference only, that he promoted it to a more worthy end, and a more important

purpose. The whole nation knew perfectly well that little children had always been baptized. That he had no need of an express command, which was in common and uniform practice.

Suppose Christ had published an edict in these words, Let all persons assemble on the Lord's day for public worship in the church; he would be insane who should thence infer that prayers, and preaching, and singing of praises were not to be celebrated on the Lord's day, in the public assemblies, because there was no mention of them in the edict. For the edict provides for the public observance of the day in the general; and concerning the particular forms of worship, there was no need that it should make provision, these being well known and in constant use at the time when the edict was given. But this precisely illustrates the case of baptism, when established by Christ for an evangelical sacrament, by which all should be admitted to a profession of the gospel, as proselytes had been admitted to the religion of the Jews. In regard to particulars, such as the mode of baptizing, and the age and sex of those to be baptized, there was no need of an express rule, because these were sufficiently known from

common use.

On the contrary; there was need of a plain and open prohibition, if our Saviour designed that infants should not be baptized. For when through all preceding ages, their baptism had been in common use, if he had intended that the custom should be abolished, he would have expressly prohibited it. His silence, therefore, and that of Scripture in this matter, confirms Pedobaptism and establishes it, in all succeeding ages."

To the same purpose are the following remarks of Wetstein, in his Commentary on Matt. xxviii. 19. "In this passage, which contains the institution of baptism, a lax and mild exposition of the word pantevσate is to be preferred to a rigid, straight-laced interpretation; and that this kind of interpretation was adopted by the Apostles, I make no doubt. For since they could not be ignorant that the boys and infants of Jews were to be circumcised, so as to become Jews, and be brought into covenant, and that the boys and infants of Gentile proselytes were not only themselves called proselytes, and circumcised, but were also baptized, as I have before fully proved; I do

not see how it could enter into their thoughts to expunge boys and infants from the list of disciples, or from baptism, unless they had been excluded by the express injunctions of Christ, which we nowhere find?"

[NOTE H.]

It will be said, perhaps, that the command to teach, or (uabEVTEGATE) disciple the nations, in Matt. xxviii. 19, necessarily limits the subsequent command to baptize them. None can properly be baptized, but those who have already become disciples. And what is it to become a disciple? Is it not to become a pupil, a learner? Those, therefore, who have become learners, or are placed in a situation to be learners, in the things pertaining to the kingdom of Christ (and such certainly are all the children of faithful, covenanting parents) may with the strictest propriety be denominated disciples. Thus Timothy was a disciple (ano30eqous) from his infancy. 2 Tim. iii. 15. And Justin Martyr speaks of some, "who had been made disciples to Christ (εn aidon) from their childhood." Apol. i. Among the Jews, not only were those called disciples who had been taught, but those who came into a situation to be taught. "Make me a prose

lyte, said a Gentile to Hillel, that thou mayest teach me." Bab. Talmud.

66

Wetstein makes three classes of disciples, viz: (TMv μαθώντων, των μαθόντων, και των μαθησομενων) those having been taught, those being taught, and those to be taught. Certainly," he says, a person may be made any one's disciple, either when he knowingly and voluntarily, of his own judgment and will, commits himself to any one for instruction; or when, by his parents or guardians, in whose power he is placed, he is so committed and entrusted. And he who is receiving his first lesson is as much a disciple, as he who has attended on the whole course of instruction. Nay, he who is committed by his father to the care of any master, is already his disciple, before he has been taught his first lessons." Com. on Matt. xxviii. 19.

But if this sense of the term disciple should be reject