(215)
and ordinances, of the Old and New Testament, are "THE SAME THINGS FOR SUBSTANCE;" "THE SAME IN SUBSTANCE." If, in
relation to these ordinances, Providence enable me to prove, from Scripture, the sigillistical identity of
circumcision and baptism, and the unrepealed requirement that this seal shall be administered to infants, it will
plainly appear, from infallible authority, that there is a divine command for infant-baptism.
PROPOSITION III.
JEWISH CIRCUMCISION BEFORE CHRIST, AND CHRISTIAN BAPTISM AFTER CHRIST, ARE ONE AND THE SAME SEAL IN SUBSTANCE,
THOUGH IN DIFFERENT FORMS.
The word seal sometimes signifies an instrument for making an impression upon wax or some other substance; it
sometimes means the impression made by this instrument; it sometimes signifies that confirmation which is imparted
by this impression; and it sometimes denotes any significant act by which confirmation is effected even without a
visible permanent impression. Ahab [[^had an implement called a seal; Jezebel made the impression of it upon the
letters which she sent to the elders and to the nobles; and this royal attestation or confirmation procured the
destruction of Naboth. (#) In order to bring the Jews to a similar end, Haman sent throughout the Persian empire,
letters "sealed with the kings
__________
(r) 1 Kings xxi. 8.
( 216 )
ring" (y) That instrument of authority which these persons obtained for the worst purposes, the Egyptian monarch
conferred upon his favourite Joseph, for the public good; "And Pharaoh took off his ring from his hand, and put it
upon Joseph's hand." (z) So Antiochus is represented as giving his signet (his ring in the Greek and Latin,) to
Philip his regent; (a) and the dying Alexander is said to have given his ring to Perdicas for the same reason. When
Paul says to the Corinthians, "The seal of mine Apostleship are ye in the Lord," (b) he does not mean that they are
the instrument or the impression, but the attestation or confirmation of his Apostleship. Dr. Gill considers it as
"alluding to the sealing of deeds and writings, which renders them authentic; or to the sealing of letters,
confirming the truth of what is therein expressed." Christ says, "He that hath received his testimony, hath set to
his seal that God is true." (c) Dr. Gill tells us that "he seals, ratifies, and confirms" this doctrine. Sealing,
in this passage, is certainly used in the sense of attestation. It moreover has this meaning and that of confirmation
where Paul says that "He [Abraham] received the sign of circumcision a seal of the righteousness of the faith which
he had yet being uncircumcised." (d) Here Dr. Gill justly remarks that "circumcision was a seal, not for secresy,
"but for certainty; it being a confirmation," &c. This
__________
(y) Esth. iii. 12. (z) Gen. xli. 42. See Gill.
(a) 1 Maccab. vi. 14. 15. So Cyrus is said to have "shut the door and sealed it with the kings signet,"
(or ring, as it is in the Greek of Bel and the Dragon, verses 11. 14.)
(b) 1 Cor. ix. 2. See Gill.
(c) John iii. 33. See GilL
(d) Rom. iv. 11. See Gill, whom we have formerly quoted more fully on this passage.
( 217 )
confirmation or attestation is what we mean by the substance of the seal; while the particular impression or
significant ceremony is called the form of the seal. As the form is arbitrary, it may be changed indefinitely,
while the substance remains the same. The text just now quoted shews that circumcision, as to its substance, is
an attestation of the righteousness of faith; that is, it is a confirmation of the doctrine of justification by
faith: but this is the substance of baptism also, however it may differ from circumcision in respect of form; and
for this reason those who have received Christian baptism are said, in the Apocalypse, to have "the seal of God in
their foreheads." That these two rites are one and the same seal in substance, though in different forms, can be
proved from Scripture.
In opposition to this, my Opponent believes that baptism never was a seal at all; that even circumcision never was
a seal to any but Abraham; and that the form of a seal is essential to its existence, so that the form cannot be
changed without destroying the substance. His reasoning is as follows, viz. "Was not circumcision significant of
something? could it not be seen and examined by every body? and what did it say? It said 'I am a Jew of the seed
of Abraham, entitled to every thing promised my father, when God told him to make this mark upon me? Deface this
mark in the flesh, and sprinkle a few drops of water upon the face, and then say, it is the same seal significant
of the same thing that is, this watery seal can be seen on the flesh, examined by every body, and says, What?
Just what circumcision said, "I am a Jew, of the seed
( 218 )
of Abraham, entitled to every thing promised my father, when God told him to make this mark upon me!" It surely
lies, if it tell such a tale.
A seal, Mr. M'Calla says, is a confirmative mark. Now who ever thought that water left a confirmative mark on the
forehead of a child? But remember, my friends, I called upon my Opponent to tell us where baptism is called a seal.
No where I say in the bible; to presume that baptism is a seal, and to presume that it is substituted in the place
of circumcision, and that the seal is changed, is taking too much liberty in an argument. One presumption might,
in some instances, be tolerated, but it is too presumptuous to demand three, nay to adopt them without any ceremony,
and place them as the basis of an argument.
I deny that circumcision was ever changed into any thing that baptism is a seal of any covenant in the legitimate
use of language: and consequently that baptism came in the room of circumcision. And, I positively say that Mr.
M'Calla cannot produce one text in the Bible in proof of the contrary. I say again, it is quite too presumptuous,
to presume so far as to take three suppositions as facts acknowledged, and place them as the foundation of an
important part of the system."
And after all that has been said of circumcision as a seal, it is only called a seal once, and in relation to one
circumstance, in the life of one individual. It never was a seal to one of Adam's race in the same sense, and for
the same purpose, as it was to Abraham. Mark the Apostle's style He received the
( 219 )
SIGN of circumcision, this was its common import to all the Jews he received the sign, its common name; to him in
particular a seal; of what? of his interest in the covenant? No, this he had guaranteed by the veracity of God. A
seal of what? Of the righteousness of that faith what faith? of the faith which he should afterwards have? No, no:
but of the faith he had. When? Sixteen years before this time; when his faith was counted unto him for righteousness:
and twenty-four years before this time he believed the promise of God; and left his own country and his father's
house in the obedience of faith. The whole mystery dissolves at the touch of common sense, when it is simply known,
that Abraham received the usual sign of circumcision, which to him was a pledge or mark of the divine acceptance of
his faith."
My Baptist Opponent is unhappy in his distinction between signs and seals. He pretends that circumcision was a sign
both to Abraham and his descendants, but that it was a seal to Abraham only, and not to one of his descendants. It
may be safely affirmed that this is one of my Opponent's original discoveries. It was entirely unknown even to
Hezechius, the ancient Greek Glossographer. Of two significations which he gives to the word sign, seal is one:(a)
and in explaining the word seals, he says that they are "those signs which are upon rings and clothes." fe)
Harpocration also, in his Lexicon, explains the one word by the other, as follows, viz. "Signs, so they call
seals." (g) Dr. Gill; who quotes
__________
(2) 2ayt3f j, 0.1 trti tw Saxtvlitov xa,i to,
(r) errata OV-T'Q Af-yovrft fee?
( 220 )
this with approbation, says that the text in question might be rendered "which sign was a seal." And Castallio's
New Testament actually gives it this rendering [[^) After my Opponent's loud call to you, to "mark the Apostle's
style," in this passage, you will be surprised to find, that, in his New Testament, he has followed Macknight, in
a translation which agrees with our views. His version is as follows, viz. "And he received the mark of circumcision
as a seal," &c. Here is nothing about circumcision being a sign to the Jews in general, but a seal to Abraham only.
This translation informs you that a sign is a mark; and he has repeatedly told you in this debate, that a seal is a
confirmative mark. Now if, according to my Opponent's own shewing, a sign is a mark, and a seal is a mark, and if
Abraham received the sign or mark of circumcision AS a seal or mark of the righteousness of faith, then where is my
Opponent's distinction between signs and seals? It is surely not in Dr. Macknight, whose translation he has copied
with approbation; for the Doctor confirms my interpretation, in his version, commentary, and critical note.
But some Baptists who acknowledge that the view of my Opponent makes a distinction without a difference, are still
unwilling to admit that circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith to any but Abraham. Yet the reason
which they give for this opinion, is not only a gratuitous assumption, but is in manifest opposition to inspired
authority. It is a mere assertion that outward
__________
(/) ac circnmcisionis notam accepit, quae .V/P-/////W rsset, &c,
( 221 )
ordinances cannot be a seal of the righteousness of faith, and that nothing less than Christ and the Divine Spirit
can be this seal. The greatest man among them speaks as follows; viz. "But alas! not ordinances, but other things
more valuable than they, are the seals of the covenant, and of believers; the blood of Christ is the seal, and the
only seal of the covenant of grace, by which its promises and blessings are ratified and confirmed; and the Holy
Spirit is the only earnest pledge, seal, and sealer of the saints, until the day of redemption." U') This author
will very readily admit that justification by faith is a blessing which believers derive from the covenant of grace:
if therefore, his assertion be true, that ordinances are not the seals of the covenant and of believers, then it
is also true that ordinances are not the seal of the righteousness of faith: but this, as we observed, is in manifest
opposition to the scriptures, which declare that Abraham "received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the
righteousness of faith.
Some, however, admit that Abraham received this ordinance as a seal, but deny that it was a seal in the case of
any other person except Abraham. This is a sentiment, and a mode of interpretation, which, I suspect, neither Jew
nor Gentile ever thought of, until it was found necessary to the enemies of infant-baptism. The opinion of the Jews
may be ascertained from their Targum, as quoted by Dr. Gill, who says that "The Apostle uses the word seal
concerning circumcision, it being
__________
(0 Gill on Rom. iv. 11.
( 222 )
a word his countrymen made use of when they spoke of it; thus, paraphrasing on Cant. iii. 8. [comp. iv. 12.] they
say, ( every one of them was sealed with the 'seal of circumcision upon their flesh, as Abraham was sealed in his
flesh.' "Moreover, in one of their Apocryphal books, the Jewish author represents God as saying to him, "Behold the
number of those that be sealed in the feast of the Lord." (/) This feast was evidently the Passover, to which the
sealing of circumcision was a prerequisite; and the number of those who were thus sealed, is, in the context, said
to be "a great people whom I could not number." This passage is referred to by Dr. Gill, in illustration of John's
declaration that "there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of
Israel." (k) The context of this passage shews that they were sealed by the application of the outward sign, as well
as by the inward grace. In perfect conformity with this Jewish usage, inspired and uninspired, the Shepherd of
Hermas, in a passage quoted by my Opponent against Mr. Walker, repeatedly calls the initiatory ordinance of the
church a seal in relation to all who receive it. Among the Christian Fathers who followed him in this usage, we find
Epiphanius saying, "The law had the circumcision in the flesh, serving for a time, till the great circumcision came,
that is, Baptism; which circumcises us from our sins, and seals us unto the name of God." In the same strain, we
find Augustine drawing a parallel between Abraham and Cornelius,
__________
(y )2 Esdras ii. f>8. Comp. 42.
(A) Rev. vii. 4. Comp. S.
( 223 )
on the one hand, who were sealed with the initiatory ordinance, after they had believed; and on the other hand,
Isaac and Christian infants, who, in maturity, enjoy that righteousness of faith, "the seal whereof had gone
before."
But to confine the seal to Abraham exclusively, my Opponent says, "It is only called a seal once, and in relation
to one circumstance, in the life of one individual." Does he mean by this, that we are not to believe the Scriptures,
if they say a thing only once? But let us try such reasoning in refutation of his argument for female communion;
and see whether he will admit its correctness. In his debate with Mr. Walker, he professed to have express authority
for female communion. It was in the following words, viz. "For there was a certain disciple there named Tabitha." (l)
What would he do with an antagonist who would seriously deny the force of this evidence, and pretend to refute it,
by saying that "female discipleship is mentioned only once, and in relation to one circumstance, in the life of one
individual?" I will tell you what he would do; he would almost dance with ecstacy at obtaining, at last, one solid,
though solitary evidence of his Antagonist's insincerity, or the weakness of his cause; and it would serve him for
matter of declamation in almost every speech throughout the remainder of the debate. I am not disposed to furnish
him with such provender, although he has gone on many a foraging excursion in pursuit of it. Although the case of
Tabitha is not an express command for female
__________
(/) Acts ix. 36. See his Spurious Debate with Mr. Walker, p. 69.
( 224 )
communion, nor any better evidence for it, than we have for infant-baptism, yet it is certainly good evidence,
notwithstanding the fact that female discipleship is mentioned only once, and concerning only one person. So, if
it were true that circumcision is called a seal only once, and that in the history of one person, this is so far
from proving that it is a seal in no other case, that it proves the very contrary. In the history of Adam, it is
said only once, and concerning one individual, that he "begat a son in his own likeness, after his image." Does
this prove that Seth was the only descendant of Adam who was born in his likeness, and after his image, or does it
not rather prove the contrary? Circumcision did not become a seal by the mere fact of Abraham's receiving it, but
"he received the mark of circumcision as a seal" already appointed in that covenant which required him to be
circumcised: neither did his reception of it make it cease to be a seal, for Isaac and Jacob were as much interested
in the covenant of circumcision as Abraham himself; and in their case, and in the cases of all others to whom it
was lawfully administered, whether infants or adults, saints or sinners, it was a seal of the righteousness of faith;
that is, it was a visible attestation or confirmation of the doctrine of justification by faith, and not by works;
the doctrine of salvation by the grace of God, through the blood and Spirit of Christ. It is not true, as some
suppose, that this ordinance was a seal, only when administered to an heir of heaven, whether in infancy or maturity:
the word of God is as true when it becomes a savour of death unto death, as when it is received in faith: so the
doctrine of justification by faith
( 225 )
is as truly sealed, confirmed, or attested in the circumcision of Ishmael as of Isaac, of Esau as of Jacob. It is
true that some subjects of this ordinance have the inestimable advantage of having the inward grace accompanying
the outward sign; but it is not this fact which makes it a SEAL: for if its significancy depended upon the certainty
of grace in the receiver, it would be an empty form to all but the searcher of hearts, and those of his children
who have attained the full assurance of faith: but it confirms the same truth to the weak believer as to the strong;
and it attests the same doctrine of justification by faith, to the unbeliever as to the believer; for the unbelief
of man can never make the faith of God of none effect, or make him alter his plan of saving sinners. This ordinance
was not intended to seal a fact but a doctrine: it was not intended to declare that the individual receiver should
be saved, but to teach that if he be saved, it must be through the blood and righteousness of his law-satisfying
Surety; and that every one who has an interest in this Divine Redeemer, whether he be an infant or adult, shall be
saved.
Although circumcision sealed this truth, my Opponent insists upon it that baptism cannot be a seal at all, because
water leaves no mark behind it. He triumphantly asks, "Now who ever thought that water left a confirmative mark on
the forehead of a child?" (m) My Opponent forgets that the rainbow is the token of the Noachic covenant, and that
the word seal is used not only for a visible permanent impression, but to denote
__________
(m) Spur, Deb. with me, p. 204, quoted above.
( 226 )
"any act of confirmation," as the Baptist Lexicographer, Dr. Allison, says. But if a seal m ust mean a visible wound
and a permanent mark or scar made in the flesh by a knife, will my Opponent be so good as to inform us what mark was
made by the angels, when they "sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads?" Dr. Gill thinks that these
"servants of our God" are the Waldenses and Albigenses. Now although it was maliciously said against them, that
their children were born with wattles hanging to their throats, it was never even suspected that they took a knife,
and tattooed their children in the face, after the manner of the heathen. I hope however, in due time, to shew that
they sealed the foreheads of their children by that "act of confirmation" which we call Christian baptism. This
interpretation is rather confirmed than confuted by the same Apostle's declaration that "A Lamb stood on the mount
Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their fore-heads." (n)
When I say that this inscription is a seal, I am in no danger of contradiction from my Opponent, who has substituted
the word inscription for the word seal, in his Translation of the New Testament. Where our bible says "The foundation
of God standeth sure, having this seal," my Opponent's Version says, "The foundation of God standeth firm, having
this inscription." Now as this seal or inscription was put upon this foundation without any literal visible mark,
so was the name of the Lamb's Father scaled or inscribed
__________
(n) Rev. vii. 5, xiv. 1.
( 227 )
upon his people's foreheads without a permanent mark. But my Opponent may object, that in baptism, not the name of
the Father only, but the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is written on his people. This suggests
the fact that some very ancient Manuscripts had the names of these three persons, if we may believe the authors of
the Ethiopic Version, as reported by Dr. Gill. The same Baptist commentator tells us that "The Alexandrian copy,
the Complutensian edition, the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Arabic versions, read, ' Having his name [the Lamb's] and
his Fathers name written in their foreheads." This reading Griesbach has adopted. It is, however, unnecessary to
our purpose, because, in relation to baptism, the bible elsewhere mentions the name of only one person, when all are
evidently implied by the writer, and were expressed in the administration of the ordinance, (o)
These various readings handed down by transcribers and translators shew the understanding of the ancient church,
in relation to the question whether baptism is a seal. My Opponent himself has suggested an additional evidence of
this sort, which is very striking indeed. In his debate with Mr. Walker, he made very pompous use of the Primate's
Translation of THE APOSTOLICAL FATHERS. He professed to quote largely from the writings of the Shepherd of Hermas,
who, (as he informed the audience,) "is commonly supposed to be the Hermas, of whom Paul speaks," in his Epistle to
__________
(o) Acts xix. 5.
( 228 )
the Romans. (p) If this be so, he must have caught the sentiments and language of the Apostles in relation to seals.
Certain it is, that he mentions the word, with as much familiarity and rapidity of repetition, as I have done in
this conference. In the 17th Section of his 9th Similitude, he speaks much like the Apostle John when foretelling
that the name of the [Lamb and of his] Father should be inscribed or sealed upon his people. Hermas says, "All the
nations which are under heaven, have heard and believed in the same one name of the Son of God by whom they are
called; wherefore, having received his SEAL, they have all been made partakers of the same understanding and
knowledge, and their faith and charity have been the same." When Hernias speaks of receiving the seal of the Son of
God, in being called by his name, does he, or does he not, mean that baptism, which initiates into the church, and
gives us the name of Christian? This question is fully answered, in the preceding Section, in which, among seven
repetitions of this word, Hermas says expressly, (f Now that SEAL is the water of BAPTISM." Here we have my
Opponent's own Author, whom he has introduced to you, as a personal friend and acquaintance of the Apostle Paul,
confirming our view of that seal of God, that seal of the righteousness of faith, or as Hermas would have it, that
seal of "understanding and knowledge," of "faith and charity," which takes the place of circumcision: "Now that
seal is the water of baptism"
__________
(p) Rom. xvi. 14. Sec Spur. Del), with Mr, Walker. p v 101.
( 229 )
Although circumcision is called a seal, and baptism is called a seal, yet the proposition now under discussion,
contends that they are not radically two different seals, but different forms of the same seal. It is substantially
the same now, that it was in the Old Testament church. Among the Jews, "The rite of circumcision was no more than
the form in which the seal was applied;" as Dr. Mason has correctly remarked. Much of the force of my Opponent's
reasoning against this doctrine, may be found in his polite, dignified, argumentative, and eloquent explosion
against this remark of Dr. Mason's. On it he speaks as follows, viz. "What sophistry! What disregard to common sense!
What an insult to the human understanding! The rite of circumcision! What was that? the making of a mark in the
flesh. The rite was the form of the seal! The making of the mark was the mark of the 'confirmative mark!!!' When
the varnish is washed off this sophistry, such is its meaning such is its naked deformity. The rite of circumcision
was circumcision itself, according to every body's views of rites. The form of circumcision, was the form of the
rite. Take away the form of a mark or of a seal, and then shew it to us. It is invisible. Hence the whole distinction
is absurd." (q)
This desperate fluttering of my Opponent is introduced, not to follow him in every dash or splash which he may make,
but to call your attention to his general course. In this rhapsody, as well as others which were
__________
(q) Spur. Deb, with me. p. 217.
( 230 )
noticed a while ago, his object is, evidently, to deny that the form and the substance of a seal may differ from
each other, and that a seal may change its form and retain its substance. It is in relation to this that he says,
The whole distinction is absurd" According to him they are inseparable: where the one is found, there is the other;
and where the one is not, there the other is wanting. This would very readily decide the controversy between king
Charles the First and his Parliament. According to this doctrine, while the Parliament held the seal of state, they
were invested with the sovereignty; and Lord Clarendon restored the sovereignty to the king, by stealing the seal
and taking it to him. This view of the subject, however, did not suit the religion or the politics of either party
in that momentous struggle. While the Parliament had the seal, the royalists esteemed them as having the [[/bnw]],
but the king as having the substance: so when the king obtained the seal, the enemies of Toryism and of the Royal
Prerogative, considered the king as having the form, but the Parliament the substance. My Opponent very pertly says
"the rite [or form] of circumcision was circumcision itself." Very well; the Arabs and apostate Jews of the present
day have this form. Again he tells us what is its substance or signification. According to him "it said, 'I am a Jew
of the seed of Abraham, entitled to every thing promised my Father, when God told him to make this mark upon me.'"
Does my Opponent consider this the language of the circumcision of the Arabs and of the excommunicated Jews of the
present day? If not, then we have the rite distinct from the signification;
( 231 )
that is, we have the form without the substance. In sacred and profane antiquity we find seals affixed to soldiers
and servants. The form of their devices would often doubtless differ, far more than the bald eagle differs from the
American turkey, which Dr. Franklin proposed as a substitute for the bird of prey, on the seal of the United States;
and would differ more than a cross mark, formerly appointed by our government, as a seal for bonds and notes,
differs from a circular mark, which, as Mr. Walker informed my Opponent, they have lately ordained as a
substitute. (r) Besides this difference in the figure of the seal affixed to soldiers and servants, there was a
difference in the place upon which it was impressed. The command of God by Ezekiel, to "set a mark upon the
foreheads" of his afflicted followers, Dr. Gill thinks to allude probably "to the marking of servants in their
foreheads, by which they were known who they belonged to." For the word mark in this text, the Septuagint and
Tremellius read sign, which, either in Greek or Latin, is equivalent to seal. In allusion to the same custom
substantially, Calasio translates Job xxxvii. 7, "He shall seal all men in the hand." With this translation the
Septuagint and Vulgate Latin agree. With the same allusion, Blanco White says that the Council of Trent "has
converted the sacrament of Baptism into an indelible brand of slavery." M Now I would propound a few questions. Was
the substance of an ancient military seal affected, by changing its device from a beast to a bird? Was the substance
of a
__________
(r) See Mr. Walker's Reply, p. 156.
(s) In his 5th Letter against Popery.
( 232 )
Prince's seal affected by writing his name on the hands of one generation of subjects or servants, and on the
foreheads of their children? Was the substance of the seal affected by changing the letters from square to round,
or the words from Hebrew to Samaritan, or the ink from red to green? Has the change of our seal from a cross mark
to a circular mark affected those bonds and notes to which it is affixed? Would the substance of our Federal seal
be affected by undergoing the change which Dr. Franklin recommended? Would Popish baptism be either more or less
a brand of slavery, by being administered to the head, the hands, or the feet, in the mode of aspersion, affusion,
ablution or immersion? And is it not a fact that the descendants of Ishmael and Isaac have, at this day, the form
of circumcision without the substance? What is there, then, so extravagant in the position that the form and the
substance of a seal are distinct things? and what is there so incredible in the doctrine, that a God of sovereignty
and mercy, may, in respect of form, change the initiatory seal of the church from blood to water, and from the foot
to the forehead, while the substance remains the same?
A little unbiassed reflection will shew an intelligent hearer that it is much more to our purpose to prove a
substantial identity of the Jewish and Christian seals? than to prove their formal identity. The substance is
incalculably more important than the form. The circumcision of the Samaritans and Ishmaelites had the form of
the Jewish seal; but because it lacked the substance, it was no seal at all. Unitarian baptism has sometimes the
form of Christian baptism; but because they
( 233 )
deny justification by faith in the vicarious satisfaction, and the imputed righteousness of a Divine Redeemer, they
lack the substance of the Christian seal; and the form without the substance is no more a true seal than a
counterfeit is true coin.
My evidence in favour of the sigillistical identity of Jewish circumcision and Christian baptism, shall be drawn from
the Scriptures, which shew their common use and signification; and which substitute the name of one form for the
other.
POINT I.
The use and signification of Jewish Circumcision and Christian Baptism^ will shew that they are the same SEAL in
SUBSTANCE, though in different FORMS.
This will appear from three particulars; that they are both initiatory seals, that they are both signs of
justification, and both signs and means of sanctification.
I. THEY ARE BOTH INITIATORY SEALS. If you and I have heard alike, you have understood my Opponent as denying this
position in relation to either of these ordinances. To pass over it, therefore, in silence, would not be proper,
howsoever generally its truth may be received.
1. Circumcision was the seal of initiation to the Jewish church. On this item, I had prepared several texts to
lay before you: but it is really too plain to justify me in occupying your time. Is there one of you who doubts
that a Gentile was esteemed an alien until he
( 234 )
was circumcised? and is there one who doubts, that from the moment of his circumcision he was esteemed a member?
And if there be any one who is stumbled by Gen. xvii. 14, under the apprehension that a native Jew may be a member
of the church without circumcision, I would observe that that passage itself is evidently intended to contradict it;
and that the word there rendered cut off, cannot, from the very nature of the case, mean exclusion from privileges
already enjoyed, but preclusion from privileges which might hereafter be enjoyed; as the same word in the Hebrew
and in the Marginal translation of Joshua ix. 23,, is used to denote preclusion from that bondage on which the
subjects had not yet entered. If any one, after this, should still ask, "How can a child be cut off from the church
before he is a member?" I would ask, "How can a child be delivered from sheol before he is dead?" and yet the
Proverb says "Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell." U) Parental duty is here
represented as a means of delivering, that is, of preventing the child from going to hell: so in the other case,
parental neglect is represented as a means of cutting off, that is, of preventing the child from being a church
member.
2. Baptism is the seal of initiation to the Christian church. With due deference to those who think otherwise, I
would humbly maintain the same doctrine, on this item, as on the last. I do not object to saying that children are
born in the church; [[v it is a language which
__________
(0 Pruv. xxiii. 14. Comp. Ps. xxx. 3. Ixxxvi. 13.
( 235 )
I use myself: but then it is used in a general and familiar, and not in a technical sense; or it contemplates the
unsealed interest which they may have in the promises of God, and not their formal church-membership. As the holiness
of the one unbelieving parent, amounts to nothing more than a removal of an Old Testament obstacle to the initiation
of the child, so the holiness of the child is understood as entitling him to, initiation. In relation both to the
visible and invisible church, I much like the ancient maxim, "CHRISTIAN! NON NASCIMUR SED (i FIMUS; We are not born
but made Christians" As the inward graces of religion distinguish the invisible church from the world; so do the
outward sacraments put a visible difference between those that belong unto the churchy and the rest of the world." (u]
All that Booth has quoted from ancient fathers and worthies, to shew the necessity of Baptism as a prerequisite for
the Eucharist, presupposes that baptism is the seal of initiation. Accordingly, he tells us, in support of his own
views, that "Theological writers have often called baptism, the sacrament of re generation, or of initiation; (v) and
the Lord's supper, the sacrament of nutrition" (v) My Opponent himself preaches this dictrine, when it seems likely
to answer his purpose. His "Fourth reason for asserting" "a radical difference between the two religions and the two
churches [of the Old and New Testaments,] is found in the terms of admission into this new kingdom." Under this head,
he says, "Nicodemus, ye must be born again; though sprung
__________
(u) Westminister Confession, Chap. 27, Sect. 1.
(v) Booth, Apology, pp. 11. 48.
( 236 )
from Abraham, ye must be born again; yes and of water too, or into Messiah's realm you'll never enter." (w) According
to this, a man must be born again of water, as a term of admission into, as the way by which he shall enter, Christ's
ecclesiastical kingdom; that is, Baptism is the way of initiation into the Christian church. After this I need not
waste your time with a formal refutation of his quibbles against this doctrine, nor with an exposure of the impious
solecism of his Master Robinson, who [[" took baptism not for a church ordinance, "but for a profession of
Christianity at large"!!
Although this Infidel writer has been long circulated among you by the deluded Baptist preachers of our country, he
has perhaps never yet persuaded you that baptism is not a church ordinance. In your faith and practice, you still
treat baptism as the initiating church ordinance; and this faith and practice can be traced through the line of your
forefathers, even up to their primitive days in Germany. According to STAFFER, "Baptism is, in their view, a sign of
initiation to the true church, and of confession." "They initiated by ana-baptism, those whom they received as
citizens of their kingdom." (x)
II. THEY ARE BOTH SIGNS OF PARDON AND JUSTIFICATION. These benefits always presuppose or infer each other. Like the
foreknowledge and foreordination of God, they are distinct, but not separate. Wherever,
__________
(w) Spur. Deb. with me, p. 197. 198.
(x) Staffer's Institutions. Chap. 18. Sect. 35. 10. "baptismus, ex mente illorum, sit signum initiationis ad
veram ecclcsiam, et contessionis." "eos quos tanquam regni sui cives assume-bant, anabaptismoinitiabant."
( 237 )
therefore, I find the one I shall take the other for granted.
1. CIRCUMCISIONS a sign of pardon and justification. This is plainly proved by Rom. iv. 11, so often quoted already;
which Dr. Gill considers as comprehending pardon along with justification: for he says that "circumcision was a sign
of Christ, as all the ceremonies of the law were, and of the shedding of his blood, to cleanse from all sin, original
and actual, and also of the circumcision of the heart; and was, moreover, a seat of the righteousness of faith." He
says that "The Apostle explains it to be a seal, or what gave assurance to Abraham, or was a sure token to him, that
righteousness would be wrought out by Christ, by his obedience, and the shedding of his blood, which is received by
faith; and that this was imputed to him," &c. (y)
2. BAPTISM is a sign of pardon and justification. "Then Peter said unto them, Repent and be baptized, every one of
you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins." But Paul tells us that God hath set forth Christ to be
a propitiation "to declare his righteousness, for the remission of sins," "through faith in his blood;" and the end
of this was "that he might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth." (z)
III. THEY ARE BOTH SIGNS AND MEANS OF SANCTIFICATION. The ordinances as well as the oracles of God, are intended as
means of grace. It does not militate against this position in respect of either, that they
__________
(y) Gill on Gen. xvii v ll.
(z) Acts H. 38. Rom. iii. 25. 26,
( 238 )
are both sometimes a savour of death unto death. It is sovereign grace which makes the gospel the power of God unto
salvation; and this same grace often connects the outward with the inward circumcision; the out-ward washing of
regeneration with the inward renewing of the Holy Ghost; so that the infant is, at the same moment, circumcised in
flesh and heart, and born of water and of the Spirit.
1. CIRCUMCISION is a sign and means of sanctification. "And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the
heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live." (a)
On this subject my Opponent peaks as follows, viz. "Was circumcision a sign of the circumcision of the heart to the
whole Jewish nation that fell in the wilderness? Was it the sign of the circumcision of the heart of one of Abraham's
descendants? No, not one. Do, Mr. M'Calla, stop and prove this assertion if you can that circumcision was a sign of
the circumcision of the heart. Don't assume every thing, don't beg every question. Have some respect to your hearers,
and to the reputation of your own intellect." (b) This declamation of my Baptist Opponent shews that pride of
intellect sometimes makes a man wise above what is written. In relation to many of Abraham's descendants, it is
written, "He is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the
letter." In relation not only to Abraham, but to his descendants,
__________
(a) Deut. xxx. 6. Comp. x. 16.
(b) Spurious Debate with me. pp. 204. 205, 226.
( 239 )
Dr. Gill says, "The only true circumcision is internal, spiritual, and in the heart." And he expressly says that
the "circumcision of the flesh was typical of this," and again, that it was "an emblem of spiritual circumcision,
or circumcision of the heart." (a) Now it will not do to answer this, by begging our worthy and eminent Baptist
writer to have some respect to his readers, and to the reputation of his own intellect.
2. BAPTISM is a sign and means of sanctification* Here the primitive Anabaptists of Germany do not agree with me as
they did in a former case: but they were consistent enough to reject the scriptures also from being a means of grace.
Their doctrine, according to STAPFER, was as follows viz. "And if perseverance depend upon man, nor is there need of
divine assistance, hence neither is there need of signs and seals of sealing grace; (b) whence they hold that the
sacraments are only signs of our confession. And since they who have attained the highest degree of perfection and
sanctity, no longer stand in need of the means of grace, hence they do not highly esteem the use of the sacred
scripture." In opposition to this erroneous doctrine my Opponent quotes Peter, who says, "Baptism does also now save
us, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead." (c) To this he adds several appropriate authorities, to some
of which I have already alluded. By this I do not mean to agree with
__________
(a) See Gill on Gen. xvii. 11. Rom. iv. 11. iii, 1. ii. 29.
(b) Nine nc.c gratitc obsignantis signia et nigillia o/ius cut. Stapfer's Institutions. Chap. 13. Sect. 30. 31.
(c) 1 Pet. iii. 21.
( 240 )
my Opponent, in considering baptism more important than faith. He might as well say that sacrifice was better than
obedience. This error of his, and the opposite one of his forefathers, both alike flow from ignorance of true
religion.
POINT II.
The substitution of the name of one FORM for the other, proves that their SUBSTANCE is the same.
On this subject I would solicit your attention to two verses, one of which has very often passed under your review.
"And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith, which he had yet being
uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that
righteousness might be imputed unto them also: and the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision
only, but also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised." (d] By
the consent of all parties, this passage represents Abraham as the father of God's people, whether they be Jews or
Gentiles. Here the Jews are not represented as believers and the Gentiles as unbelievers; both have the same 'faith,
because the faith of the church has undergone no change: but the Jews are represented as circumcised, and the
Gentiles as uncircumcised, altho' Abraham is the Father of circumcision to both; because, though both have,
substantially,
__________
(d) Rom. iv, 11. 12.
( 241 )
the same seal, they have not the same/m?* of the seal. As the use of the abstract for the concrete is a common
Hebraism) we are here to understand "the father of the circumcision" to mean "the father of the circumcised." This
will preserve the antithetical relation of the two aspects in which Abraham's character is here presented. One is,
that he was the father of the uncircumcised believers; another is, that he was the father of the circumcised. The
sense of one will illustrate the other. Dr. Gill says that the first means that he was the father "of them AS they
were believers," whether they were Jews or Gentiles. The meaning of the second, then, must be that he is the father
of the circumcision AS they were circumcised) whether Jews or Gentiles. This is the plain meaning of the passage.
The Gentile church is evidently represented as circumcised in one sense, and as uncircumcised in another sense. The
two cannot be reconciled on any other principle, than that the substance of circumcision remains under the form of
baptism after the ancient form of the seal is abolished.
2. Paul says, "Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision: for we are the circumcision, which
worship God in the Spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh." (e) In this passage,
as in the former, the noun is used for a participle; it means [[a we are the circumcised." Why are Christians said
to be circumcised? It must be, because they have received outward, or inward circumcision, or both. But my Opponent
denies that it ever
__________
(e) Phill. iii. 2. 3.
( 242 )
relates to inward circumcision. He says, "Was it the sign of the circumcision of the heart of one of Abraham's
descendants? No, not one." Then, of course, the word here must mean external circumcision. But it cannot mean that
form of it which the Jews practised; for that is here called, by way of contempt, concision, in allusion to the
savage and cruel manner in which the heathen cut their flesh: it must, therefore, mean some Christian ordinance
which, while it does not wound the flesh, is substantially the same with Jewish circumcision, in being a seal of
initiation, and a sign of justification and sanctification. This ordinance we have shewn to be Christian Baptism.
To this the text evidently alludes; while it certainly does not exclude, but primarily intends that spiritual
circumcision, the existence of which my Opponent is unwilling to admit.
3 "Also 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 baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him, through the
faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." (/) Here also we find circumcision in the
Christian church. Yet it was not Jewish circumcision, nor that Judaizing circumcision which the Ebionites practised;
but it is said to be "the circumcision of Christ," or Christian circumcision. Now if my Opponent be correct in
denying that there is any inward circumcision, and if he be correct in saying that water-baptism is here intended,
then we are
__________
(/) Col. ii. 11. 12.
( 243 )
taught by this passage, that there is an external circumcision, which is not after the Jewish, but the Christian
form; and that this Christian form of circumcision is, "being buried with him in baptism," as it is correctly
translated. The Greek of Oriesbach, and the Latin of Castallio have only a comma at the close of the eleventh verse.
This punctuation only makes a plain truth a little more obvious, that is, that baptism is the Christian circumcision.
It is worthy of remark, that this very text was so explained, in a work ascribed to Justin Martyr, who lived very
near the time in which Paul wrote it. "The question there, is, Why, if circumcision were a good thing, we do not use
it as the Jews did? The answer is, We are circumcised by Baptism with Christ's circumcision, &c. And he brings this
text for his proof." (g) In allusion to the same text, both Basil and Chrysostom say that Baptism is the
"circumcision made without hands." And Austin declares it one of the errors of the Pelagians, to "say that in the
baptism of infants, there is no putting off the flesh, that is, no circumcision made without hands." (/0
But if, in opposition to my Opponent, you should understand this passage to relate to spiritual circumcision and
baptism, as I do, it makes no difference in the conclusion; for the identity of the thing signified is an evident
deduction from the substantial identity of the outward signs. When the Apostle tells us that the spiritual "putting
off the body of
__________
(g) Wall's History of Baptism. Chap. 2, Sect. 2. From him quoted by the Editor of Calmet's Dictionary, in his First
series of Facts and Evidences on the subject of Baptism.
(/O Wall's History. Chap. 14. Sect, 1. 2. Chap. 12. Sect. 5.
( 244 )
the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ," is the same as "being buried with him in baptism," does he
not evidently teach that they point out the same inward benefits because they are substantially the same
ecclesiastical seal? If you can believe that Christian baptism is the Christian circumcision spiritually, then you
will not long reject the doctrine that baptism is the sigillistical successor and substitute of circumcision.
In reply to this language, my Opponent insists that one thing cannot be a substitute for another, unless it
completely quadrates, that is, agrees in all points. He then urged what he considered nine points of difference
between circumcision and baptism. I then shewed nine points of difference which might easily be found between a
drafted militia-man and his hired substitute, who might, nevertheless, be received as a legal substitute, and be
esteemed greatly preferable to his principal; as baptism certainly is to circumcision. He then enlarged his list
to eleven points, and I mine to twelve. He has now brought them up to fourteen; to which I will add, from other
quarters, enough to make them amount to twenty, and concisely notice them in detail. They are as follows, viz.
1. "Circumcision was administered to males only: its substitute then should be confined to males only."
This is an objection urged by all the Baptists; even by Mr. Emlin, who admits that in the text which we last
discussed, Paul does speak of baptism as being to Christians, instead of circumcision. Yet he says, "It
( 245 )
does not follow that the subjects of each must be the same;" and instances in the females. Dr. Wall's answer to Mr.
Emlin will do for my answer to my Opponent. He says, "It does follow that they should be the same, except where the
gospel-rules do direct an alteration; but St. Paul, discoursing of baptism, (Gal. iii. 27. 28.) says, that in respect
of it, ' there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female/ &c. that
is, there is no difference between them." (z) Now if he can shew as plain authority for excluding infants, as this
is for receiving females, it will be to the purpose.
2. "Circumcision required not faith in its subject. Baptism therefore ought not to require faith in its subject."
To this I answer, that although neither circumcision nor baptism requires faith in an infant subject, yet as they
are only different forms of the seal of the righteousness of faith, they surely demand faith in the adult subject,
and in the parent or guardian who presents an infant subject. In relation to circumcision, this is proved by the
very first administration of it; and by very many other scriptures, which, as they have already occupied much of
your time, need not here be repeated.
3. "Circumcision was administered according to law on the eighth day. Its substitute then should be administered
on the eighth day."
My Opponent well recollects that this difficulty was agitated in the time of Fidus and Cyprian: but with them it
was a difficulty in relation to duty, not doctrine.
__________
(i) Wall's Defence against Gale, p. 31. 32,
( 246 )
Those who believed baptism on the eighth day obligatory, and those who did not believe it obligatory, both believed
it to be the Christian circumcision. As there were no Anabaptists in those days, the doctrine that circumcision and
baptism were substantially the same seal, was clear enough to the whole church. The only difficulty with Fidus was,
to discover the lawfulness of baptizing an infant before he was eight days old. He expressed no doubt of the
lawfulness of baptizing a child when he had arrived to that age, or at any subsequent period; for this was the law
of circumcision: but in a Council of sixty Bishops, he could not find one to agree with him, in thinking it unlawful
to baptize under the age of eight days. I agree with them, because this limitation of time formed a part of the
complicated machinery of Old Testament purifications, as laid down in the twelfth Chapter of Exodus; in the prospect
of which it was probably at first commanded. But if you think differently, I would advise to do as Fidus did; Baptize
on the eighth day and onward, the sooner the better.
4. "Circumcision was administered by parents, not by priests ex afficio. Baptism, its substitute, ought likewise to
be administered by parents, not by priests, or clergy, ex officio."
My Opponent, doubtless, knows that his Master, Robinson, asserts "the right of every Christian to enlarge the
kingdom of Christ, by teaching and baptizing others." You know that my Opponent has followed this Infidel in making
baptism every thing, and yet in waging a war of extermination against the whole order
( 247 )
of clergy, as such. If he be correct in denying that baptism is a church-ordinance, then it is of but little
importance, to have church-officers to administer it; nor do I believe that he wishes the existence of a church to
observe it. It is plain, however, that this objection about lay-baptism, is, like the preceding one, entirely
irrelevant to the question in hand. It may be decided either the one way or the other, without in the least affecting
the identity of circumcision and baptism. This will appear from the slightest examination of the subject, and from
the fact, that lay -baptism has been advocated and opposed by both Baptists and Pedobaptists, while they still held
their peculiar and contrary views, on the question of identity. This argument, however, will serve to increase his
numerical force of objections, and to shew his eager desire to destroy the clergy; for he knows that ^f he can smite
the shepherds, their flocks can be scattered.
5. "Circumcision was a mark made upon, not the face of the subject. Baptism, its substitute, ought not to be
performed on the face."
This objection has already been answered; and I cannot help still thinking, that if an earthly Prince has a right
to change a civil or military seal, as to its form, its device, its letters, and its place of administration, such
as the hand or the forehead, without altering its substance, then our heavenly Prince has a right to do the same.
6. "Circumcision was not a duty binding upon the child, but upon the parents; it was an act of the parent, the
subject was passive. Baptism, therefore, is not a duty
( 248 )
of the subject, but of the parent; it is the parent's act, the subject is passive."
It is a pleasant proof of the strength of our cause, when a man of such a fruitful invention, cannot muster fourteen
objections to it, without making this pitiful evasion one of them. The whole force of it depends upon the ambiguity
of the word subject, as it may mean either an infant or an adult. He knows that if he had left out this word, or if
he had used it uniformly and exclusively, he would have appeared like a man talking in his sleep. Let us try it first
without this ambiguous word. It would read as follows, viz. "Circumcision was not a duty binding upon the child, but
upon the parents; it was an act of the parent, the child was passive. Baptism, therefore, is not a duty of the child
but of the parent: it is the parent's act, the child is passive." Would not this be a powerful objection to the
identity of circumcision and baptism? It is at least as passive as any child that I ever saw baptized. Now let us
read it with the ambiguous word subject, uniformly substituted for child. Circumcision was not a duty binding upon
the subject, but upon the parents; it was an act of the parent, the subject was passive. Baptism, therefore, is not
a duty of the subject, but of the parent: it is the parent's act, the subject is passive." Does my Opponent believe
such doctrine as this? Does he believe that circumcision was not a duty binding upon Abraham its first subject, but
upon his parents? Does he believe that it was not binding upon thousands of adult subjects who followed him? If,
therefore, it is admitted that, under the Old Testament, unsealed adults were bound to receive circumcision
( 249 )
for themselves and their children; and if, under the New Testament, unsealed adults are bound to receive baptism
for themselves and their children, where is the force of his objection against the identity of these ordinances?
All the force that it has goes to prove their identity.
7. "Circumcision was administered to all a man's slaves, all born in his house and bought with his money. Baptism,
therefore, ought to be administered to all the slaves of a householder, as well as to his own seed."
In answer to this, I would observe, that the true doctrine of circumcision was, that this ordinance should be
administered to every believer and his infant household; which embraced his own infants, those which he had adopted,
and those which were bound to him; all of which he had an opportunity of training up in the way they should go.
When Abraham's adult servants were circumcised, there is reason to believe that it was with their own consent, and
upon their own profession, (as was the case with the Israelites at Gilgal,) because these servants of Abraham had
previously received this training. They are expressly called his trained servants, before the institution of
circumcision: (/) and the word there used does not appear to relate to military discipline, but to spiritual
instruction and ecclesiastical initiation; as in the Proverb which says "Train up a child in the way he should go,
and when he is old, he will not depart from it." All that I have said here concerning household circumcision, is
true concerning.
__________
(7)Gen, xiv, 14. I i
( 250 )
household baptism; as I hope to shew in my argument for infant baptism, from Apostolical practice.
8. "Circumcision required no piety in the parent to entitle his child to this ordinance; neither faith nor piety
were ever required of a parent to entitle his child to circumcision. Piety or faith ought not then to be demanded
as necessary in parents to the baptism of their children."
I am sorry to say that thousands of Pedobaptists agree with every word of this unscriptural stuff: yet they are so
far from thinking it an objection to the doctrine that baptism is the Christian circumcision, that they seriously
believe it an argument in its favour. Others, on the contrary, think more correctly, that granting church privileges
to those who do not even profess the circumcision of the heart, is a crying sin of both dispensations. These also
think that the agreement of the two dispensations, in this feature, is an evidence that circumcision and baptism
are the same seal.
9. "Circumcision imported that its subject was entitled to all the promises made to Abraham concerning his natural
seed. Baptism, its substitute, therefore, imports that its subject is entitled to a share in all the temporal
blessings promised to the seed of Abraham."
In reply, I would remark, that if either of these propositions be true, then Providence has deprived very many of
their rights. Instead of this, I would say that circumcision is a seal of the righteousness of faith, and baptism
is the same. We shall then have the Scriptures on our side, as has been already proved.
10. Circumcision was a token or sign in the flesh, of
( 251 )
the covenant made in the seventeenth chapter of Genesis; Baptism, is therefore, a token or sign in the flesh, of
the covenant made with Abraham in the seventeenth chapter of Genesis."
I answer, as it has been proved that the best Baptist authorities answer, that the seventeenth chapter of Genesis
contains a revelation of the covenant of grace. I moreover answer, that circumcision and baptism are only different
forms of the same sign or token of the one covenant of grace in different administrations. It is possible that the
objector here means to renew his insinuation that baptism cannot be a token of the covenant, because it is a watery
one. If so, I would again remind him, that the token of the Noachic covenant was a watery one. "I do set my bow in
the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth." (A)
11. "Circumcision was not to be performed in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Baptism, its substitute,
is, therefore, not to be performed in these names."
My answer is, that if I believed, with a certain objector, that the second of these adorable persons is not the
supreme and eternal God, and that the third had no existence until the day of Pentecost, then I would not baptize
in this name. It is for this reason, that some more sincere and consistent Unitarians have actually ceased to baptize
in the name of the Trinity. But as this Triune God has instituted circumcision and baptism, an
__________
(*) Gen, ix, 13,
( 252 )
made them one and the same seal, we administer the Christian form as he has directed, without knowing or inquiring
what words were originally used in the Jewish form.
12. "Circumcision was identified with the law of Moses, (John vii. 23.) and shared the same fate. Baptism is,
therefore, identified with the law of Moses, and must share the same fate."
I answer, that according to Gill's understanding of the passage referred to, it affords no better argument against
the doctrine that baptism is the Christian circumcision, than against the doctrine that the first day of the week
is the Christian sabbath. But the whole objection rests upon ground which is perfectly preposterous; that because
one form of a seal is abolished, therefore its substitute must be abolished. He might as well say that because a
drafted militia-man stays at home, therefore his hired substitute must stay at home.
13. "Circumcision has come to such a crisis that whosoever is circumcised, Christ shall profit him nothing; therefore,
baptism, its substitute, will also come, or has now come, to such a crisis, that whosoever is baptized, Christ shall
profit him nothing/'
I answer, that this is true enough with respect to that baptism which lays a man's conscience perfectly asleep, from
the moment of his coming up out of the water. The reason is, that he puts his baptism in the place of Christ, as the
Jews put their circumcision in the place of Christ. Therefore, as they reject Christ, he will profit them nothing.
But there is one sort of circumcision which has not yet come to that crisis. It is that
( 253 )
which Paul had in view, when he said, "We are the circumcision, which worship God in the Spirit, and rejoice in
Christ, and have no confidence in the flesh." "In whom also ye are circumcised, with the circumcision made without
hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the [Christian circumcision, or] the circumcision of
Christ, [being] buried with him in baptism." This is a sort of circumcision in which Christ profits us much; and
which does not lead his true church to boast that their conscience has not troubled them since they received it.
14. "Circumcision did not exempt one of the Jews from baptism, when they believed in Christ; therefore, its
substitute, baptism, ought not to exempt a believer from being baptized again and again. " (/)
My Opponent probably knows that the fact of baptism having been rightly administered to those who had been rightly
circumcised, is disputed. I, however, do not dispute it. Yet I am far from perceiving the force of his objection.
It is as much as to say, that because, on the change of dispensation, the New Testament form of the seal was
administered to those who had received the Old Testament form which is now abolished, therefore, without a change
of dispensation, the form ought to be repeated, when there is no abolition to make it necessary.
15. Some time after my Opponent had got through his fourteen objections, he speaks as follows, viz. "If it
__________
(/) For all these objections, Sec Spur. Deb. with me, pp. 219. 220.
( 254 )
[the infant] was about to die, one hour before it was eight days old, the Jews would not circumcise it. If baptism
came in the room of circumcision, why then do many seem so anxious to have their infants sprinkled before they die!!
This is a fifteenth contradiction of the doctrine of substitution, in which the practice of the Paido-baptists
differs from their principles. " (m)
I could answer this objection by observing that his fifteenth is the same as his third, which I have answered
already. My Opponent's endeavour to multiply objections, by making one serve for two numbers, reminds me of a defence
which I once heard before a Session, by a delinquent who was charged with abandoning church ordinances. He very
formally said, "I will divide my defence into three parts. The First; The Presbyterians signed a petition to stop
the mail on the Sabbath, so that my son in Indiana might be killed by the Indians, and I not hear of it, till it
would be a day too late. The Second; The Presbyterians want to join church and state. The Third the same as the
first." Although the Moderator of the Session asked him if it was not through mistake, that he had made "the third
the same as the first," he insisted upon it, and it was so recorded. As I do not expect my Opponent easily to
relinquish his fifteenth reason, I have allowed it to him, although it is the same as the third? and although it
really does not deserve to be uttered and repeated, any more than the old gentleman's objection to stopping the mail
on the Sabbath.
__________
(m) Spur, Deb. p. 226.
( 255 )
16. I am reminded by a friend, (n) that my Opponent has urged as one objection, that "Pedobaptists are bound to
sprinkle all infants of sprinkled parents."
As this is the same as the eighth, my answer to it has been given under that number. He might as well object, in
the next place, that the Pedobaptists want to join church and state.
17. My Opponent has, moreover, said, "that among the Jews, good and bad alike eat the Passover on the ground of
circumcision." (0)
In answer to this, I would remind you of the sorrowful confession of pious and candid Baptists, like Mr. Greatrake,
who mourn, that good and bad too often eat the Eucharist, on the ground of adult immersion. This fact, therefore,
will argue more for than against the sameness of circumcision and baptism.
18. In reply to some of Dr. Mason's remarks concerning hereditary descent, my Opponent concludes that, according to
our system "The children of the flesh are counted for the seed," (/0 contrary to the Apostle's declaration that "They
which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted
for the seed." ^)
To this I answer, that "the children of God" and the seed" here mentioned, are the members of the invisible church;
and the Apostle's remark was made to shew that membership in the church invisible was not always according to
hereditary descent, among Jews or
__________
() Mr. Lowry, in his written abstract, now before me,
(o) Lowry's Abstract. (/) Spur. Deb. with me, p. 400.
(y) Rom. ix. 8.
( 256 )
Christians; although a right to visible church membership descended from parent to child, among both Jews and
Christians.
19. In order to help out my Opponent with a round number of objections, permit me to notice one of Mr. Gale's, as
reported by Dr. Wall. (r) It is that Pedobaptists cannot account baptism to be instead of circumcision, because
purification of heart and life is instead of it. This, however, is in opposition to my Opponent's doctrine, that
it never was "a sign of the circumcision of the heart." Here then, we have two errorists taking directly opposite
ways to arrive at the same point. The object of both is, to prove that baptism cannot be the Christian circumcision.
With this view, one of them rejects the circumcision of the heart, in order to deprive us of those texts, which shew
that spiritual circumcision and spiritual baptism are the same; but the other boldly asserts the circumcision of the
heart, in order that he may make it the sole successor and substitute of the outward form, to the exclusion of
baptism, which the scriptures represent as a visible substitute; while they always teach inward circumcision, both
before and after the change of the outward form.
20. But the most powerful objection of all, I have reserved for the last. It is a supposed necessity that a
substitute should perfectly QUADRATE" with its principal. He insists upon it that this quadration must be universal
and perfect; so that if one feature of difference, howsoever minute, can be ascertained between
__________
(r) Defence, p. 233.
( 257 )
two things, it is impossible that one of them can be a substitute for the other. They must fit one another with as
much exactness as the impression on the wax corresponds with the seal; nay, they must quadrate much more perfectly;
for between some seals and their impressions, you may perhaps find twenty points of difference; but between a
substitute and its principal there must be no point of difference. For this reason it is, that my Opponent has been
so anxious to multiply particulars, thinking that every additional one, even though it were a repetition of a former
one, made his refutation the more triumphant. He knows moreover, that this principle is at the bottom of every
objection which he or any other Baptist has ever urged against the sigillistical identity of circumcision and
baptism. Let it once be admitted that a substitute may differ in one point, and in many points from its principal,
and be A a substitute still, and every objection which they have made will go for nothing. For this reason my
Opponent has pressed his doctrine of quadratiom with remarkable solicitude, confidence and animation. He has
literally taught you quadrations with both hands, by spreading, or may I say, spraddling all his fingers, to shew
you that a substitute and its principal must quadrate as exactly as the fingers of the right hand agree with those
of the left. But what an unhappy illustration ! Is there no difference between the right hand and the left? Are
there any two hands, or fingers, or teeth, or eyes, in this house, which, when minutely examined, do not differ in
more than twenty particulars? This doctrine is also at war with
Mr. Gale's position that purification of heart and life is K k
( 258 )
instead of circumcision. Is there no difference between an outward sign and an inward grace? But remember that our
Saviour himself became a SUBSTITUTE for his people. Is there no difference between holiness and corruption, the
Creator and the creature? How would the enemies of his vicarious satisfaction be pleased! how would the gates of
hell rejoice, if my Opponent could establish his ambidextral quadrations!!
But without continuing to point so awful a truth against a theory so supremely preposterous, I will refer you to an
illustration which may occupy your familiar attention in detail. It is that of a military substitute, of which a
slight mention has been made already. You remember that when my Opponent enlarged his objections, so as to number
nine points of difference between circumcision and baptism, I produced nine particulars in which a military
substitute might differ from his principal, and yet be legally and joyfully recognized as a substitute. You remember
that he enlarged his list to eleven, and I mine to twelve. He afterward went on to fourteen, then fifteen, and I
have helped him to gather his scattered forces until they amount to twenty. At present, therefore, you will not
think it necessary for me to enlarge my list to more than thirty. To spare your time, I shall get over them with
all possible speed, even to the neglect of grammatical accuracy. To proceed then; A man who is hired to take the
place of a drafted militia-man, who wishes to stay at home, will be cheerfully and correctly recognized, as a true
and legal [[siib-)]] if he should differ from his principal, in[[ bciritj]]
( 259 )
1 Taller
2 Younger
3 Straighter
4 Stronger
5 Swifter
6 Sprightlier
7 Thicker
8 Thriftier
9 Heavier
10 Healthier
11 Handsomer
12 Happier
13 Holier
14 Humbler
15 Hardier
16 Honester
17 Wittier
18 Soberer
19 Graver
20 Braver
21 Gentler
22 Genteeler
23 Kinder
24 Cleanlier
25 Lovelier
26 Chaster
27 Meeker
28 Quieter
29 Wiser
30 Better
You will observe, that in all these points of difference between the principal and his substitute, there is not one
which, in the least, invalidates the vicarious character of the latter; nor one which does not make him superior to
his principal. Just so it is with the two forms of our initiatory seal: there is not one feature of difference which
disqualifies baptism from serving as a substitute for circumcision; nor one feature which does not make it superior
to it. If, therefore, my Opponent could muster thirty points instead of fifteen or twenty, they would only shew the
great superiority of the New Testament [[/0r/?2, to that of the Old Testament, without, by any means, impugning their
substantial identity.
But I am far from admitting that there are as many points of difference as my Opponent's increasing zeal may choose
to enumerate. If he had stopped at five, he would probably have had all that deserve the name. Baptism differs from
circumcision, 1. In its being an aspersion, or ablution, or affusion of water, instead of an effusion of blood. 2. In
its being administered usually to the head, forehead, or face. 3. In its being lawful to
( 260 )
administer it to infants of any age, as well under as over eight days. 4. In its admitting subjects of both sexes.
5. In its not requiring a profession of faith in both parents. Any person who knows the nature of seals, must see
that all these points are merely circumstantial; not one of them belonging to the essence of a seal. Any one may
perceive, moreover, that there is not one of them, which does not make the substitute superior to the original form.
My Opponent, therefore, might have spared the remark that I had illustrated the subject by a military substitute,
on account of "finding the points of difference between circumcision and baptism so numerous and so glaring." (s)
They are few in number, and indifferent in their nature.
My Opponent would persuade you that the case in question does not deserve an answer: yet it is amusing to see that
he is obliged to answer it; and in doing so, is compelled to relinquish his original ground. His words are as
follows, viz. "He [M'Calla] introduces a military substitute instead of a theological one. And this is not all, nor
the worst of it; he draws his conclusion from the personal differences between the substitute and his principal, and
not from any difference in the performance of the offices or duties, which the substitute is obliged to perform for
his principal. Had we made objection to baptism as a substitute for circumcision, because the one was a watery rite,
and the other a bloody one, there would have been something more specious in his sophistry. But we objected to
__________
(*) Spur. Deb. p. 237.
( 261 )
the substitute, as differing from the principal, on the ground of its not performing the offices or duties of the
principal. If a military substitute performs all the duties incumbent on the principal, he is completely a
substitute, although his person might differ in one hundred respects from him. Now if baptism performed all the
offices and duties of circumcision, neither more or less, we would not object to it, as a substitute, because of its
personal or characteristic differences, already mentioned under the idea of blood and water." (t)
So much for my Baptist Opponent. Now in these remarks, I say, he has made a retrograde movement. In his original
ground, he required that the principal and the substitute should quadrate, not only entirely, but completely; not
only in their nature and ends, but in their appendages and circumstances. On this ground his first, third, and fifth
objection, required that they should both be confined to one sex, both be applied to one part of the body, and both
be administered on the eighth day. His fifteenth objection will not admit of the administration of the substitute to
a child, "one hour before it was eight days old." But now he says, "We would not object to it as a substitute,
because of its personal or characteristic differences already mentioned under the idea of blood and water." That is,
he would not deny that baptism was a substitute for circumcision, merely "because the one was a watery rite, and the
other a bloody one." How can these things be reconciled?
__________
(0 Spur, Deb. p. 237.
( 262 )
Is not a change from the shedding of blood to the application of water as important as changing the part of the body
to which the seal is applied? Is not a change from blood to water as important as subtracting one hour" from eight
days? and is it not as essential as any feature of difference which can be discovered between circumcision and
baptism? If so, then all the twenty objections, according to my Opponent's new principle, have no more weight against
the identity of the two rites, than my thirty objections have against the vicarious standing of the military
substitute.
But in taking his new ground, my Opponent would persuade you that he has reserved a secure refuge. He says, "If a
military substitute performs all the duties incumbent on the principal, he is completely a substitute, although his
person might differ in one hundred respects from him." This, however, is so far from being a formidable principle
to the Pedobaptists, that it is the very ground upon which their doctrine rests. We admit that the Christian rite
differs from the Jewish, in five non-essential particulars, just as one man may differ from another in a hundred
non-essential particulars; yet we say that baptism and circumcision have the same essential qualities, as seals;
just as these two men may be able to perform the same essential duties, as soldiers. In despite of all my Opponent's
sophistry on this subject, it has been shewn that circumcision is an initiatory seal; so is baptism: circumcision is
a sign of pardon and justification; so is baptism: circumcision is a sign and means of sanctification; so is baptism.
And while they agree in these essentials, (as it has been proved at large
( 263 )
that they do agree,) they may differ in one hundred particulars, and yet the one may be the substitute of the other,
according to my Opponent's own shewing; howsoever contradictory it may be to his exploded doctrine of quadrations.
Mr. Gale (w) says that "the argument for infant baptism from circumcision was not insisted on by those called Ancient
Fathers; and though he might have instanced in some of them, who, indeed, do not mention its succeeding circumcision,
he unluckily picks out for his only instances St. Cyprian and St. Austin, who are known to have mentioned it; but he
says it was not insisted on by them, for aught he finds!" Perhaps a more diligent and candid search would have
enabled him to find it. The audience will recollect, that, before I formally commenced the defence of the present
proposition, my Opponent was eager to enter upon it; and in doing so, "declared that Calvin and Beza were the first
who argued Infant-baptism from Jewish circumcision." (v) You recollect how emphatically I called upon you to mark
that declaration. Startled at my request, and fearing that exposure which I promised to make, in due time, if
Providence allowed, he came forward to support his assertion by what he called a respectable writer. Suspecting from
the outside of the pamphlet, as well as from the ignorance and rashness displayed in its contents, that its author
was Dr. Fishback of Lexington, I
__________
(u) As reported by Dr. Wall, in his Defence, p. 570. The words quoted are the Doctor's.
(v) Lowry's Abstract of notes taken at the Debate.
( 264 )
called for the name; but my Opponent had, by that time, become so modest, that I could not distinguish what name
he announced. However, here we have it in the Doctor, whose pamphlet I have taken the trouble to bring along with
me. His words are as follows, viz. "I had been accustomed to hear it said, that baptism was established in the
Christian church, in the place of circumcision under the Jewish economy. In MY investigation of the subject, I found
that that opinion was comparatively of a recent date. I could not find in church-history or any where else, that it
had been introduced earlier than the sixteenth century, and for the first time by Calvin and Beza." (w) While I was
proving to you that the early church agreed with the scriptures in calling baptism a seal) it became necessary to
read some testimonies from the Fathers, which shew, at the same time, that they considered it as coming in the place
of circumcision. Notwithstanding this, my Opponent renews his gross assertion, immediately after he had retreated
from his quad-rations, noticed a few minutes ago. He says, "The quotations read from Dr. Wall's History does not
disprove our assertion, that Calvin and Beza were the first who introduced baptism in the room of circumcision, in
the sense contended for by Mr. M
As the testimony of the church on this subject, belongs to the fourth general topic, it was my intention to reserve
it for that place. Its anticipation, we hope, will be excused, especially as it will occupy very little time.
__________
(tt>) Fishback's Letters, p. 09.
(x) Spur. Deb. p. 237.
( 265 )
The evidence is plain, and, strange to tell, it may be found in that very paragraph of Dr. Fishback's book, from
which I have just now read an extract. He there informs us that ATHANASIUS, who lived twelve hundred years before
Calvin and Beza, says that "Circumcision was appointed on the eighth day, to be a figure of that regeneration made
by baptism"
His cotemporary, EPIPHANIUS,, says, "The law had the patterns of things in it; but the truth of them is in the
gospel. The law had the circumcision in the flesh, serving for a time, till the great circumcision came, that is
baptism; which circumcises us from our sins, and seals us unto the name of God." (y)
His contemporary, AUGUSTINE, speaks as follows, viz, Yet we may besides take a true estimate, how much the sacrament
of baptism does avail infants, by the circumcision which God's former people received. For Abraham was justified
before he received that, as Cornelius was endued with the Holy Spirit before he was baptized: and yet the Apostle
says of Abraham, that ' he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith, by which he
had in heart believed, and it had been counted to him for righteousness. Why then was he commanded thenceforward to
circumcise all his male infants on the eighth day, when they could not yet believe with the heart, that it might be
counted to them for righteousness, but for this reason, because the sacrament itself is of itself of great import?
Therefore, as in Abraham
__________
(y) Wall's Hist. Chap. 21. Sect, 5. L< I
( 266 )
the righteousness of faith went before, and circumcision the seal of the righteousness of faith came after; so in
Cornelius the spirit of sanctification by the gift of the Holy Spirit went before, and the sacrament of regeneration
by the laver of baptism came after. And as in Isaac who was circumcised the eighth day, the seal of the righteousness
of faith went before, and (as he was a follower of his Father's faith) the righteousness itself, the seal whereof
had gone before in his infancy, came after; so in infants baptized the sacrament of regeneration goes before, and
(if they put in practice the Christian religion) conversion of the heart, the mystery whereof went before in their
body, comes after." (;z)
AUSTIN, moreover, tells us concerning Chrysostom, Even he, as well as the martyr Cyprian, teaches, that the
circumcision of the flesh was commanded in the way of a type of baptism." He then quotes the words of Chrysostom,
which are the same as those of Basil; after which he adds, "You see how this man, established in ecclesiastical
doctrine, compares circumcision to circumcision, and threat to threat: that which it is, not to be circumcised on
the eighth day; that it is, not to be baptized in Christ: and what it is, to be cut off from his people; that it is
not to enter into the kingdom of heaven. And yet you [Pelagians] say that in the baptism of infants there is no
putting off the flesh, that is, no circumcision made without hands; when you affirm that they have nothing which
needs to be put off: for you do not confess them to be dead
__________
(z) Wall's Hist. Chap. 15. Sect. 3.
( 267 )
in the uncircumcision of the flesh, by which is meant sin, especially that sin which is derived originally: for by
reason of this, our body is the body of sin, which the Apostle says is destroyed by the cross of Christ. (a)
CHRYSOSTOM says, "But our circumcision, I mean the grace of baptism, gives cure without pain, and procures to us a
thousand benefits, and fills us with the grace of the Spirit: and it has no determinate time, as that had; but one
that is 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; in which there is no trouble to be undergone, but to throw off the
load of sins, and receive pardon for all foregoing offences. " (6)
AMBROSE says, "For a very good reason does the law command the males to be circumcised in the beginning of infancy,
even the bondslave born in the house: because as circumcision is from infancy, so is the disease. No time ought to
be void of the remedy, because none is void of guilt." "Neither a proselyte that is old, nor an infant born in the
house is excepted; because every age is obnoxious to sin, and therefore every age is proper for the sacrament."
"The meaning of the mystery is plain. Those born in the house are the Jews, those bought with money are the Gentiles
that believed: for the Church is bought with the price of Christ's blood. Therefore, both Jew and Gentile, and all
that believe, must learn to circumcise themselves
__________
(a) Wall's Hist Chap. 14. Sect. 2.
(A) Ibid. Chap. 14, Sect, 1,
( 268 )
from sin, that they may be saved. Both the home-born 66 and the foreigner, the just and the sinful, must be
circumcised by the forgiveness of sins, so as not to practice sin any more: for no person comes to the kingdom
of heaven but by the sacrament of baptism." You see, he excepts no person, not an infant, not one that is hindered
by any unavoidable accident." (c)
BASIL, in reference to that text which occasioned the last sentence quoted from Ambrose, speaks as follows, viz.
"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 in putting off the
flesh, which is performed in baptism, when thou hearest our Lord himself say, Verily, verily, I say unto you, except
one be born of water and of the Spirit, he shall not enter into the [["< kingdom of God ?> (c)
CYPRIAN, and the rest of the Bishops who were present at the Council, sixty-six in number, in their letter to
Fidus, in favour of baptizing a child before he is eight days old, notwithstanding the law of circumcision on that
point, argue as follows, viz. "That the eighth day was observed in the Jewish circumcision, was a type going before
in a shadow and resemblance, but on Christ's coming was fulfilled in the substance. For because the eighth day,
that is, the next to the sabbath day, was to be the day on which the Lord was to rise from the dead, and quicken
us, and give us the spiritual
__________
(c) Wall's Hist. Chili). 13. Sect. 2. (e) Ibid. Chap. 12. Sect. 5.
( 269 )
circumcision, this eighth day, that is, the next day to
the sabbath, or Lord's day, was signified in the type before; which type ceased when the substance came, and the
spiritual circumcision was given to us. So that we judge that no person is to be hindered from obtaining the grace,
[or, as it is elsewhere expressed, it is not for us to hinder any person from [[baptism,^ by the law that is now
appointed: and that the spiritual circumcision [that is, [[baptism,^ ought not to be restrained by the circumcision
that was according to the flesh: but that all are to be admitted to the grace of Christ; since Peter, speaking in
the Acts of the Apostles, says, ' The Lord hath shewn me that no person is to be called common or unclean.'" (/)
JUSTIN MARTYR says, "We also who by him have had access to God, have not received this carnal circumcision, but
the spiritual circumcision, which Enoch, and those like him observed. And we have received it by baptism, by the
mercy of God, because we were sinners: and it is enjoined to all persons to receive it by the same way." A work
entitled "Questions to the Orthodox," is ascribed to Justin Martyr. My Opponent, in his spurious publication
against Mr. Walker, (g) recognizes its authenticity. In answer to the question, why, if circumcision were a good
thing, we do not use it as well as the Jews did; the answer by Justin is, "We are circumcised by Baptism with
Christ's circumcision." (h]
Thus is this doctrine clearly traced from Augustine
__________
(g) Wall's Hist. Chap. 6. Sect, 1. (tf) p. 103.
(h) Wall's Hist. Chap. 2. Sect. 1. 2.
( 270 )
back to Justin Martyr, who lived in the second century, immediately after the Apostles, from whom, as we have
already shewn, they received it. Dr.Fishback professes to make some quotations from Wall's History of Baptism,
in which they are interspersed, and from which I have now read them. If he has read the whole of this work, he
could well say, "I had been accustomed to hear it said, [even by the early Fathers] that baptism was established in
the Christian church, in the place of circumcision under the Jewish economy." But instead of tracing it to the
ancient Fathers, this man of deep research says, "In my investigation of the subject, I found that that opinion was
comparatively of a recent date. I could not find in church history, [not even in Wall's History,] or any where else,
[not even in the writings of the Ancients themselves,] that it had been introduced earlier than the sixteenth
century, and for the first time by Calvin and Beza." And my Opponent echoes the declaration of his respectable
writer, by saying, "The quotations read from Dr. Wall's History does not disprove OUR ASSERTION that Calvin and Beza
were the first who introduced baptism in the room of circumcision, in the sense contended for by Mr. M'Calla."
If my Opponent were to deny, as he did with Mr. Walker, that this doctrine was urged by the Fathers as a professed
argument in proof of a divine command for Infant-baptism, that would be another thing. The truth is, they had no
one to argue with on this subject. Even Tertullian himself, who was opposed to baptizing infants, still admitted
that there was a divine command for baptizing
( 271 )
them: as I hope to shew under the fourth Topic of this discussion.
After your hearing my sentiments and the sentiments of the Christian Fathers so distinctly, it is perhaps difficult
for you to imagine what my Opponent means, when he pretends that their view of this doctrine is different from "the
sense contended for by Mr. M'Calla." If these be not words spoken at random, I would conjecture that he may refer
to their imitation of the Apostle Paul, in speaking of the Christian church as a spiritual and even celestial
dispensation, of which the Jewish church was, in a certain sense, only a figure. Circumcision is called "a figure"
of baptism, by Athanasius. Epiphanius calls it a pattern. Chrysostom, as reported by Austin, calls it a type.
Cyprian calls it [[a y type going before in a shadow and resemblance." This, however, is owing to the superior
spirituality of the Christian dispensation; for which reason, Paul calls the New Testament church, "Jerusalem which
is above." (i) For this reason, Augustine, Chrysostom, and Basil, call baptism, the circumcision made without hands;
and Cyprian and Justin Martyr call it the spiritual circumcision: or rather the latter of these, who lived before
them all, says, "We have received it by baptism." Epiphanius calls baptism 'the truth of" circumcision. Cyprian calls
it "the substance" of circumcision. They all used this language, however, not to deny that the one has come in the
place of the other, but to express that doctrine; because every one knows that now, the substance has come in
__________
(i) Gal. iv. 26.
( 272 )
place of the shadow, and the anti-type in the place of the type. And that they do this in the sense in which I
understand Paul's words, where he calls baptism the circumcision of Christ, is evident from the fact that several
of them give my explanation to that text; besides which Chrysostom calls our circumcision, the grace of baptism;
and Justin expressly says, "We are circumcised by baptism with Christ's circumcision." While they thus considered
them the same in substance, it has been already shewn that they considered circumcision a seal, and baptism a seal.
They evidently therefore held the doctrine of the proposition now under discussion, from ten to fifteen hundred
years before Calvin and Beza came on the stage.
After what has been said, we shall consider it certain, because it has been proved to be true, that there is a real
distinction between the substance of a seal, and the form of a seal; that circumcision and baptism are denominated
a seal by the scriptures and the early church; that they are both the initiatory seal of the church in their
respective dispensations; that they are both signs of pardon and justification; and both signs and means of
sanctification; that Christians are called the circumcision; and that baptism is called the circumcision of Christ;
that the real points of difference are comparatively few, and these relating to the form, and not to the substance,
and therefore not forbidding the substitution of baptism for circumcision, any more than a superiority in health,
stature, activity, and bravery, would forbid the acknowledgement
|
