common, and sold their possessions and goods, and parted to all men, as every man had need." Acts ii. 44. But. where were their children at this time? Were not they associated with their parents? Would the Christian parent vest all his property in the common stock, and cast his infant children upon the world? It is beyond all controversy that the children of Christians in those days were associated with their parents, and sustained a near and peculiar relation to the church of Christ.

Another fact which deserves notice in this connexion is, that the Jewish converts continued, for many years, to circumcise their children, and to do it under the immediate charge and direction of the Apostles. We are told that the great church at Jerusalem, which consisted of "many thousands," and was under the pastoral care of the Apostle James, were not a little displeased when they heard of Paul, that he taught the Jews "not to circumcise their children." Acts xxi. 20. Now what does this fact of circumcision prove? Undoubtedly, that the children of believing parents were at that time regarded as holding some connexion with the church of Christ. .Had the covenant with Abraham been abolished, and had it been the intention of the Apostles to separate in future between children and the church, they never would have countenanced, or so much as tolerated, the circumcision of children. They would as soon have tolerated the Gentiles in the worship of their idols.

From the Apostles' times to the present, the connexion of children with the church has been sanctioned by the general voice of professing, Christians. Such was clearly the understanding in the primitive church, as all who are acquainted with the writings and doings of the early fathers very well know. Thus, the Council of Eliberis, which assembled about two hundred years after the Apostles, speaks of infants being carried over from the

*

Catholic church to heresy, before the fault could be their own. And at a much earlier period, Hermas saw certain stones 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.t

Indeed, the peculiar relation of children to the church (with some diversity of explanation and practice) has been constantly maintained, by Greeks, Catholics, Episcopalians, and by most denominations of Protestant Dissenters, even to our own times.

SECTION IV.

The Substitution of Baptism in the place of Circumcision.

That baptism is now substituted in the place of circumcision is an incontestable inference from the fact, that the church, under both dispensations, has been the same. Baptism is now, what circumcision was in ancient times, an instituted pre-requisite to a regular standing in the visible church. If, therefore, the church has been, under both dispensations, the same, the conclusion cannot be resisted that baptism has come in the place of circumcision.

The same conclusion results also from the fact, that the covenant with Abraham is still the covenant of the church. Of this covenant, circumcision was formerly the token. "It (circumcision) shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and thee." Gen. xvii. 11. But circumcision has been abolished, and baptism, an ordinance of the same church, and of course, under the same covenant, has been instituted. How plain, therefore, that baptism has taken the place of circumcision, as the visible token of the covenant of the church?

* Wall's Hist. of In. Bap. Part i. Chap. 7.

+ Similitude ix. Chap. 15.

This conclusion is confirmed by the consideration that circumcision and baptism are of precisely the same import. Circumcision, as a token of the covenant, was both a sign and a seal. As a sign, it represented 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, circumcision confirmed "the righteousness of faith," or the covenant of grace. Rom. iv. 11. Such was the import of circumcision. And. is not that 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? - Does it not assure those who receive it that, if their characters are conformed to its sacred import, their faith shall be imputed to them for righteousness, and they be interested in all the blessings of the covenant of grace ?-But if, when the ancient token of the covenant was abolished, an ordinance was established in the same church, and appended to the same covenant, of precisely similar import; how is it possible to resist the conclusion, that this latter is substituted for the former ?*

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." Phil. iii. 2, 3. And to the Colossians he says, "Ye 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

* See Appendix, Note E.

baptism." Col. ii. 11, 12. In other words, Ye are circumcised, having been baptized.'

If it be objected, that spiritual circumcision and spiritual baptism are here intended, I admit that they are; and the Apostle represents them to be the same. And if these two ordinances are spiritually the same, and if the one was instituted in the church on the removal of the other, is it not plain that the one is substituted for the other?

The primitive Christian fathers considered baptism as having come in the place of circumcision.

Justin Martyr says, "We have not received this carnal circumcision, but the spiritual circumcision; and we have received it by baptism. It is allowed to all persons to receive it in the same way.'

In the Questions to the Orthodox, attributed to Justin, we have the following Question and Answer: "If circumcision be a good thing, why do not we use it as well as the Jews?" Ans. "We are circumcised by baptism with Christ's circumcision."t

The question of Fidus to Cyprian and the Council of Carthage, whether it be lawful to baptize an infant sooner than the eighth day, necessarily supposes it to have been an established opinion that baptism had come in the place of circumcision. Indeed, Cyprian says expressly, that "Christ has given us baptism, the spiritual circumcision."'

Basil says, "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

* Wall's Hist. of In. Bap. Vol, i. Chapters ii. vi, xi, + Part i. Chap. 2.

the Lord himself say, except one be born of water and the. Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God?"*

Ambrose clearly speaks of baptism as having come in the place of circumcision.*

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

Chrysostom says, "Our communion, I mean the grace of baptism, gives cure without pain, and procures to us a thousand benefits. And it has no determinate time, as the ancient circumcision had; but one in the very beginning of his age, or one that is in the middle of it, or one ⚫ that is in his old age, may receive this circumcision made without hands.**

To the sentiment inculcated in this Section there have been objections, which it may be proper briefly to consider.

1. It is said that the substitution of baptism in place of circumcision was not urged, as might have been expected, in reply to those Judaizing teachers, who were for enforcing circumcision on the Gentile converts. Acts xv. But these teachers wished to enforce on the Gentiles, not only circumcision, but the whole ritual law; and to enforce it all as a condition of salvation. Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law of Moses, or ye cannot be saved." It would, then, not have satisfied them in the least, to have urged that baptism had been substituted for circumcision. The grand difficulty had still remained, 'Ye must keep the law, or ye cannot be saved.'—It appears that, as far as the proposed answer would have

* Wall's Hist. of In. Bap. Vol, i. Chapters xii-xv. It will be observed that several of the fathers speak of baptism (in the language of the Apostle, Col. ii. 11, 12.) as "the circumcision made without hands." It is evident from this, that they understood the Apostle, in the passage referred to, as teaching the substitution of baptism in place of circumcision.