INFANT BAPTISM 
 
 3m- 
 
 copy I 
 Seif 
 
 AND THE 
 
 ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 
 
 JULt. 1^ . Of OU&h% , 
 
 6bitbn. 
 
 NOEWICH: 
 
 FEINTED BY J. FLETCHEE, MAEKET PLACE. 
 
 1860. 
 
 Price Threepence. 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 That many believers in the Lord Jesus are persuaded 
 that Infant Baptism is of God, I do not doubt. The 
 writer himself was once of that opinion. In the 
 ensuing argument, then, he trusts to display no spirit 
 but that of love towards those whom he addresses, 
 while he suggests to them texts of Holy Writ, and 
 considerations, destructive, (as he assuredly believes) 
 of the views they entertain. 
 
 The great stronghold of the maintainers of Infant 
 Baptism is generally considered to be the Abrahamic 
 covenant. And the statement of the argument in its 
 strongest form is as follows: — “ The Abrahamic cove¬ 
 nant is virtually the same with the Gospel; for we read, 
 that—‘The Scripture foreseeing that God would justify 
 the heathen through faith, preached before the Gospel 
 unto Abraham, saying. In thee shall all nations be 
 blessed.’ ” The principal difference is, that circumcision, 
 which was the ancient seal of that covenant, has, in the 
 wisdom of God, been changed for baptism now. Cir¬ 
 cumcision was the seal of the righteousness of faith 
 under the Abrahamic covenant, baptism is the appointed 
 seal of the same righteousness under the Gospel. As, 
 then, infants were circumcised under the Abrahamic 
 covenant, because of the divinely instituted connexion 
 between themselves and their parents, so are the 
 children of believing parents now to be baptized on 
 the same ground. The descendants of believing 
 Abraham were to be circumcised in their infancy: 
 the children of believers are therefore to be baptized 
 in their infancy.” Or, to give it in the words of a 
 defender of Infant Baptism :—“The covenant with 
 Abraham is the same in substance with that under 
 which we live. The same blessings of that covenant 
 are denoted both by circumcision and baptism. The 
 
4 
 
 covenant then being the same, and the ordinance being 
 • in import the same, the subjects entitled to its adminis¬ 
 tration are also the same. But infants were entitled 
 to circumcision on the ground of their connexion with 
 their parents; therefore infants, on the ground of their 
 connexion with their parents, are entitled to baptism.” 
 
 The argument here rests upon one principal assump¬ 
 tion. ‘ There is but one great covenant with Abraham,— 
 the covenant of circumcision ; and under this believers 
 of the present day are living.’ If this be false, the whole 
 argument falls to the ground. In contradiction to this, 
 I shall bring evidence to show— 
 
 I. That there were two covenants with Abraham. 
 
 II. That the covenant of circumcision (on which the 
 argument for Infant Baptism rests) is not the GOSPEL, 
 but the LAW. 
 
 The proof of these two propositions is the destruction 
 of the argument for Infant Baptism, as derived from the 
 Abrahamic covenant. But I shall proceed to prove— 
 
 III. That circumcision was not the seal of the 
 righteousness of faith to any but Abraham. 
 
 IV. That baptism is not the substitute for circumcision. 
 
 Y. That baptism is not a seal at all. 
 
 VI. That it is not of the same meaning as circumcision. 
 
 VII. That there was not of old, and is not now, the 
 supposed spiritual connexion between children and their 
 parents. 
 
 I. Let us then advance to the proof of the first pro¬ 
 position. Not one covenant alone, but two were made 
 with Abraham. 
 
 If so, the very expression, ‘the Abrahamic covenant^ 
 carries with it the error on which the whole is based. 
 
 1. The first covenant made with Abraham is recorded 
 in the same chapter that describes his justification by 
 faith : (Gen. xv. 6.) Of this covenant we read—ver. 18. 
 “ In the same day the Lord made a covenant with 
 Abram, saying. Unto thy seed have I given this land.” 
 
 A second time does God present a covenant to 
 Abraham in the seventeenth chapter. “ I will make my 
 covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee 
 exceedingly:” ver. 2. 
 
5 
 
 ‘But may not tliese be but two different forms of 
 the same covenant ?’ No: for Stephen recognizes them ' 
 as distinct. The first covenant (in Gen. xv,) he first 
 notices and rehearses, “He gave him none inheritance 
 in it (this land,) no, not so much as to set his foot on ; 
 yet he promised that he would give it to him for a 
 possession; and to his seed after him, wkeu as yet he 
 had no chilli.^’' This fixes the time, of which Stephen is 
 speaking, to Gen. xv, 4, 7, 18 ; or to some time before 
 that ; for in ch. xvi, Abraham had a son. 
 
 But that of which Stephen is speaking is fastened to 
 ch. XV, by the words that follow. “ And God spake on 
 this wise, that his seed should sojourn in a strange land; 
 and that they should bring them into bondage, and entreat 
 them evil four hundred years. And the nation to whom 
 they will be in bondage will I judge, said God : and 
 after that they shall come forth and serve me in this 
 place.” This is a quotation from God’s prophecy to 
 Abraham in Gen. xv, 13—16. 
 
 Thus the first covenant is recognized by Stephen. 
 But he adds. And he gave him the covenant of cir¬ 
 cumcision:” Acts vii, 5—8. Here is then the second 
 covenant with Abraham. 
 
 3. Moreover, that we have not mistaken the matter, 
 Paul is a witness : for, writing to the Galatians, he 
 says, “ Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do 
 ye not hear the law ? For it is written, that Abraham 
 had two sons ; the one by the'^' bondmaid ; the other by 
 the* freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman 
 was born after the flesh ; but he of the freewoman was 
 by promise. Which things are an allegory ;f for these 
 ( womenare the two covenants, the one from the 
 Mount Sinai which gendereth to bondage^ which is Agar. 
 For this Agar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth 
 to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her 
 children. But Jerusalem which is above, is free, which 
 is the mother of us allGal. iv, 21—26 
 
 Here then we are informed, that as Abraham had 
 two wives, so the meaning of this spiritually is, that 
 
 Ex rng 'TTaidiGxvjg. Ex rr^g O.svds^ag. 
 
 j Edr/v ciKkrtyo^ovium^ Or, “Are to be allegorized.” % 'A\j7ai. 
 
6 
 
 •with him were made two covenants. And these differed 
 in their nature, as much as the bondslave Hagar differed 
 from the freewoman, her mistress Sarah. And Paul 
 uses this argument to retain in Gospel liberty those who 
 were ready to fall back to the law. The argument then 
 rests on this foundation : that in Abraham’s person both 
 th^ law and the Gospel mcet^ and are represented by his 
 two wives. And from the treatment experienced by the 
 wife who represented the Law, you may understand what 
 will be your lot, if you identify yourself with the law. 
 
 It cannot be doubtful, I think, to which of the two 
 covenants with Abraham Hagar answers. Hagar (says 
 Paul) is equivalent to the covenant on Sinai,—or the 
 law.—And Sarah therefore represents the covenant of 
 grace. 
 
 Which covenant then, of the two made with Abraham, 
 does Hagar represent ? That of faith (ch. xv.) or 
 that of circumcision ? (ch. xvii.) That of faith^ by 
 which Abraham was justified? Or that of circumcision^ 
 by which he was not justified ? 
 
 (1.) Hagar cannot answer to the covenant of faith and 
 grace, for Hagar represents the law, and the law is not 
 of faith : Gal. iii, 12. Hagar then represents, not the 
 covenant of grace, (Gen. xv,) but the covenant of 
 circumcision: (Gen. xvii.) 
 
 (2.) The covenant of bondage is Hagar’s covenant. 
 For Hagar was “ the hondmaid^^ and she “gendereth to 
 bondage:^ Gal. iv, 22—24. But the covenant of cir¬ 
 cumcision is the covenant of bondage ; as saith the 
 Apostle, “ Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith 
 Christ hath made you free, and be not entangled again 
 with the yoke of bondage. Behold I Paul say unto 
 you, that if ye be circumcised. Christ shall profit you 
 nothingGal. v, 12 ; Acts xv, 10. The covenant 
 of circumcision therefore is Hagar’s covenant. 
 
 (3.) Again, that covenant from which Paul dissuades 
 the Galatians by threatened loss of the inheritance, is 
 Hagar’s covenant. But the covenant of circumcision is 
 that against which the Apostle so earnestly pleads. 
 That, therefore, is Hagar’s covenant. And Hagar’s 
 covenant is the law, as Paul has already informed us. 
 Therefore the covenant of circumcision (Gen. xvii) in 
 
Abraham’s day answers to the law : as the covenant 
 of faith (Gen. xv.) answers (in part) to the Gospel. 
 
 (4.) But the proof that the first covenant with Abra¬ 
 ham is virtually the Gospel, and the second covenant (of 
 circumcision) is virtually the law, will be much strength¬ 
 ened by a comparison of the chapters. The reader is 
 requested to study them for himself: and in order to a 
 successful comparison, it is worthy of particular observa¬ 
 tion, that each of the covenants is divided into seven 
 parts, corresponding with each other ; the four first com¬ 
 posing one great division, and the three last, another. 
 
 Gen. XV. GEN. XVII. 
 
 Ver. Div. (First Covenant.) ver. Div. (Second Covenant.) 
 
 1, 2. 
 
 3, 4. 
 5, 6. 
 
 7, 8. 
 
 1 / Encouragement 
 [ Promise 
 
 2 1 One Son, Heir 
 
 3 < As the Stars thy 
 i seed 
 
 4 f The Land 
 
 1-3 
 
 4-6 
 
 7 
 
 8 
 
 1 / Requirement 
 / Promise 
 
 1 Father of nations 
 
 2 < God to thy seed 
 
 3 j after thee 
 \ The land 
 
 4 ^ 
 
 9-12 
 
 5 r Sacrifice 
 
 9 
 
 5 / Commandment 
 
 13-16 
 
 6 ) Prophecy 
 
 10-13 
 
 6 \ Circumcision 
 
 18-21 
 
 7 J Covenant of gift 
 
 13-14 
 
 7 j Covenant of flesh 
 
 
 ( 
 
 
 \ and works 
 
 The covenant of Gen. xv. is 
 in spirit the Gospel; for 
 
 1. i. It is the covenant of peace, 
 Fear not, Abram.” This is the 
 Spirit of the gospel: (Luke ii, 
 10.) And is not this speaker he 
 who said to his apostle, “ Fear 
 NOT, I am the first and the last: 
 I am he that liveth and was dead, 
 and behold I am alive for ever¬ 
 more," Rev. 1, 17, 18. 
 
 iL God is the reward promised 
 here; and this is no earthly pro¬ 
 mise. But the answering promise 
 of the second covenant is simply 
 the fleshly promise of the multi¬ 
 plying of Abraham’s seed, which 
 is a promise of the law, Deut. 
 viii, J ; XXX, 16. 
 
 2. Because this covenant pre- 
 
 The covenant of Chap, xvii, is 
 the law; for, 
 
 1. i. It is the covenant of fear. 
 The law is “ The Spirit of bond¬ 
 age to fear," Rom. viii, 15. Hence 
 Abram takes the attitude of one 
 afraid. He “ falls on his face.” 
 “ And when the disciples heard 
 it, they fell on their face and were 
 sore afraid," Matt, xvii, 6, 7; 
 Lev. ix, 24; Numb, xiv, 5; xii, 
 22, 45 ; 1 Chron. xxi, 16 ; Deut 
 vi, 2. 
 
 ii. It is a mutual covenant, God 
 is to do his part, (Div. 2, 3, 4.) 
 and man his, (Div. 5, 6, 7.) The 
 opposite division is encouragement, 
 this is requirement. And perfec¬ 
 tion is demanded, which is the 
 requirement of the law. Lev. xxii, 
 21; Deut. xviii, 1, 3. 
 
 2. This gives us the plural 
 
8 
 
 sents Abraham’s individual seed ; 
 which, the apostle tells us, is 
 Christ. Gal. iii, 16. And one 
 special person is presented, who 
 is to he the heir. Who is this ? 
 “ His Son, whom he hath ap¬ 
 pointed Heir of all things,'' Heb. 
 i, 2. 
 
 3. i. Because Abraham’s seed 
 
 is here presented in a gospel light, 
 without the distinctions of sex, 
 nation, station, as in the other 
 covenant; and these distinctions 
 are done away in Christ, Gal. iii, 
 28. Nay, their being like the 
 stars is a glimpse of the resurrec¬ 
 tion glory. “Many of them that 
 sleep in the dust of the earth shall 
 awake .... and they that turn 
 many to righteousness shall he as 
 the stars for ever and ever," Dan. 
 xii, 2, 3. “ One star differeth 
 
 from another star in glory: so 
 also is the resurrection of the 
 dead," 1 Cor. xv, 41, 42. 
 
 ii. But especially is this the 
 gospel, for it is the covenant of 
 JUSTIFICATION. Paul appeals to 
 this as the gospel, Rom. iv. 3, 9, 
 22 ; Gal. iii, 6. Abraham’s spi¬ 
 ritual and heavenly children are 
 first presented; and thus Abra¬ 
 ham’s justification, which is the 
 pattern of their owp. And though 
 many in number, as viewed by 
 man, in God’s eye they are but 
 one in Christ, Gal. iii, 28. 
 
 4. It is the covenant of the in¬ 
 heritance.* Abraham, says Paul, 
 attained the promise to he heir of 
 the world through the righteous¬ 
 ness of faith, Rom. iv. 
 
 5. It is the covenant of cer¬ 
 tainty. “ Whereby shall I know 
 that I shall inherit it?" The 
 
 seed; the nations that are to 
 spring from Abraham. Yet this 
 division is of faith, as given to 
 justified Abraham alone, and re¬ 
 hearsing the former promise; 
 Gen. XV, 5. 
 
 3. i. This is Abraham’s seed 
 after him.’’ The other covenant 
 present’s Abraham’s seed which 
 was before him, “ Before Abraham 
 was I am," John viii, 58. The 
 present cannot be the covenant of 
 grace, for this covenant is fixed to 
 the line of natural generation; 
 but grace does not run in that 
 line, John i, 13 : Rom. ix, 8. 
 
 ii Not only is the seed limited 
 to Abraham’s race, but God him¬ 
 self takes a limited title, which is 
 that of the law. “A God to thee.” 
 “ Thy God.” But this is thrown 
 down under the gospel, when Jew 
 and Gentile are justified by faith, 
 Rom. iii, 19. 
 
 4. Here the land of Canaan is 
 definitely given for a possession 
 to Abraham’s fleshly seed; and 
 the expression used is that of the 
 law, Deut. xxxii, 49; Lev. xxv, 
 10—46. 
 
 5. In this, human performance 
 and keeping of the covenant are 
 required. Here is no ground 
 
 * Paul takes the expression of ver. 7. in 
 
 its widest sense, To xf-Yi^ovofiov itvat rov xoff/xou : for the gospel is 
 the spirit, the law is taken in the letter. The one is construed by 
 mercy and sovereignty; the other by justice. 
 
9 
 
 ground given him is sacrifice, 
 alike the ground of his justifica¬ 
 tion and inheritance. The sacrifice 
 is God’s, and he calls it so. 
 “ Take we an heifer.” There¬ 
 fore it is of faith, that it might be 
 by grace; to the end that the 
 PROMISE MIGHT BE SURE TO ALL 
 THE SEED,” Rom. iv, 16. 
 
 6. On the ground of faith and 
 the sacrifice, God lays open to 
 Abraham his secret plans. This 
 is the place of the son, knowing 
 his Father’s will. And the bur¬ 
 den of the prophecy is of a gospel 
 character; first sufiFering, after¬ 
 ward joy. 
 
 7. This is an unconditional deed 
 of gift, confirmed by God unto 
 Christ before the law. As then 
 the promise rests simply on God’s 
 word, without any requirement 
 on man’s part, forfeiture cannot 
 come in. This then must be the 
 covenant of grace. The seed to 
 whom the promise is made is Abra¬ 
 ham’s individual seed, not to “ his 
 seed after him,” but to Christ. 
 
 I gather then assuredly that 
 this covenant is virtually the 
 gospel, for it is the covenant of 
 encouragement, and of Christ 
 presented as the Heir, the Sacri¬ 
 fice, AND the seed; it is the 
 unconditional covenant of faith, 
 j ustification, resurrection-glory, 
 and the inheritance. 
 
 of certainty. ‘ If you would at¬ 
 tain the preceding promises, you 
 must observe the conditions.’ 
 “ Thou shalt keep my covenant 
 therefore.” Such was the very 
 charge at giving the law. “ If 
 ye will obey my voice indeed 
 and keep my covenant, then ye 
 shall be a peculiar treasure unto 
 me,” Exod. xix, 5. 
 
 6. Here God leaves man to 
 himself and his own powers, and 
 gives him laws. This is the place 
 of the servant kept in ignorance 
 of his master’s design, for the 
 meaning of circumcision is not 
 given. And the act of circum¬ 
 cision is a thing of the flesh, and 
 of the letter, Rom. ii, 27—29 ; 
 Gal. vi, 12, 13. Even so the law is 
 a thing of the letter and of the flesh, 
 2 Cor. iii. 6 ; Rom. iii, 20 ; vii, 5, 
 25. 
 
 7. This is a covenant in the 
 flesh, “ My covenant shall be in 
 your flesh,” It ends with a threat 
 and so with an opening for for¬ 
 feiture. This also is of the law. 
 “ The law worketh wrath.” And 
 the threat of being “ cut off from 
 his people,” is a threat of the law 
 of Moses, Exod. xxx, 33, 38 ; 
 xii, 19 ; Lev. xxiv, 8, &c. 
 
 I conclude with confidence 
 that this covenant is virtually 
 the law, as a covenant in the 
 flesh, the covenant by which 
 Abraham was not justified ; 
 (Rom. iv) the covenant of fear, 
 requirement, perfection, and threat, 
 of human obedience and uncer¬ 
 tainty, of the fleshly seed, and of 
 forfeiture. 
 
 II. But as this is the great question in the present ar¬ 
 gument, I propose to adduce additional proofs, evincing 
 beyond all reasonable doubt, that the covenant of cir¬ 
 cumcision is the law. 
 
 4. If the breach of the command of circum¬ 
 cision would be a breaking of Moses’ law, circum- 
 
10 
 
 cision is a part of that law. Hear then, tlie Savior. 
 
 Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not 
 that* it is of Moses, but of the fathers') and ye on the 
 sabbath day circumcise a man. If a man on the sabbath 
 day receive circumcision^ that the law of Moses should 
 not he broken^ are ye angry at me because I have made 
 a. man every whit whole on the sabbath day ?” John vii, 
 22, 23. The Lord Jesus therefore, asserts circumcision 
 to be a part of the law ; so much so, that if the rite were 
 not performed on the eighth day (the time commanded 
 in Abraharn s covenaiit also) the law of Moses was 
 broken. Therefore circumcision is of the law. He 
 adds, that this rite of circumcision came not originally 
 from Moses, but from “ the fathers,” of whom Abraham 
 was the chief: Matt, hi, 9. Thus the circumcision 
 of Abraham's day is identified with the law of Moses. 
 And as Paul traces it downwards from Hagar and 
 Ishmael^ through Sinai, to Jerusalem and its children 
 then in bondage; so on the other hand does Jesus trace 
 up the legal circumcision from Mose^ day to Abra¬ 
 ham's. What further is wanting, to prove that the 
 covenant of circumcision given to Abraham, is virtually 
 and in essence the law ? 
 
 5. When Paul went up to Jerusalem for the last time, 
 the believing Jews, all of them ‘‘^zealous for the law," had 
 received intelligence, that Paul taught the dispersed of 
 their nation ^Jiot to circumcise their children, nor to walk 
 after the customs.” This both they and the apostles con¬ 
 sidered equivalent to a forsaking Moses," or as it is in 
 the original, “ apostacy from Moses.” f To confute this 
 mistake, the apostles requested Paul to join himself with 
 those under a Nazarite vow, in proof of his “walking 
 orderly and keeping the law." Here circumcision is 
 regarded both by the believing Jews, the apostles at Jeru¬ 
 salem, and Paul, as a part of the same law of Moses with 
 Nazariteship and the other customs. But that which 
 was so regarded by all the church of that day, cannot but 
 be true. Therefore circumcision is a thing of the law. 
 
 * Or/. So Bloomfield, “ T1 e sense is: ‘ Not that it is of Moses, 
 [but had been establish-d by Abraham.] ” So Professor Scolefield, 
 Beza, the Rhemish Testament, &c. 
 
11 
 
 6. Hear another witness. There were in the Galatian 
 church certain Jewish teachers, who laboured to induce 
 the disciples to be circumcised. Now in what light does 
 Paul view this ? “I testify again to every man that is 
 circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law^^ Gal. 
 V, 3. If then the covenant to which circumcision bound 
 a man is the law, the covenant to which circumcision 
 belonged is the law. 
 
 And again in the same epistle,—As many as desire 
 to make a fair show in the flesh, constrain you to be 
 circumcised ; only lest they should suffer persecution for 
 the cross of Christ. For neither they themselves who are 
 circumcised keep the law^ but desire to have you circum¬ 
 cised, that they may glory in your flesh,” vi, 12, 13. 
 Herein the apostle argues, that the only motive of the 
 Jewish teachers in inducing Galatian believers to be 
 circumcised was evil,—the desire to escape persecution : 
 for the only right and proper motive was excluded from 
 the case, by their not keeping the law. If then the 
 only legitimate reason of desiring circumcision was an 
 intention to keep the whole law^ circumcision must be a 
 thing of the law. But the first is true : therefore the last. 
 
 (a.) Now these examples shut up the only way of 
 escape from the force of this argument that I am able 
 to discover. For it might be said,—‘ Granting you to 
 have proved, that the covenant of circumcision was the 
 law in Moses’ day, and thence onward up to Paul’s, still 
 I am at liberty to distinguish between circumcision as 
 given to Abraham ; and circumcision as commanded by 
 Mo^es.^ But this way of escape is closed : first by 
 Paul’s tracing Hagar’s covenant from Abraham’s day 
 down to his own, as unbrokenly one and the same ; and 
 secondly, by Jesus tracing it up from Moses’ day to 
 Abraham’s as but one and the same throughout. 
 
 (b.) But further, any assumption that would destroy 
 an inspired argument is false. But if the Jewish 
 teachers might have said, ‘ We receive circumcision, 
 not as it is of Moses, binding us to the law ; but as it is 
 of Abraham, the seal of the covenant of faith,’ the dis¬ 
 tinction, if it were valid, would have destroyed the whole 
 of the apostle’s argument. It were possible then' to 
 assume circumcision^ aiid yet not to be under the law ; 
 
12 
 
 and the case o f the two wives of Abraham were nothing 
 to the 'point; for but one covenant had ever been given to 
 Abraham^ and that was the covenant of grace, of ivhich 
 circumcision was the appointed seal! This cannot be ; 
 therefore circumcision in Abraham’s day is of the same 
 character as when commanded by Moses. 
 
 ,7. Again, let us take Paul’s argument in the Romans. 
 In the first chapter, he impeaches the Gentile, and 
 proves him guilty of many crimes and sins. In the 
 second he convicts the Jew of transgression ; describing 
 him first generic ally, as one who judged others. In 
 the I7lh verse he addresses him openly, “Behold thou 
 art called a Jew, and resteth in the law .... and 
 approved the things that are more excellent, being in¬ 
 structed out of the law .... which hast the form of 
 knowledge and of the triith in the law!' He then ac¬ 
 cuses him of not reducing his knowledge to practice, of 
 theft, adultery, sacrilege, “ Thou that inakest thy boast 
 of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest 
 thou God ? ” He next fastens on their circumcision as 
 a part of the law, and that on which they prided them¬ 
 selves ; and he asserts its meaning to be, (as he had 
 shown before to the Galatians) a bond to do the whole 
 law. “ For circumcision verily profiteth if thou keep 
 the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy cir¬ 
 cumcision is made uncircumcision. Theiefore if the 
 uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall 
 not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision ? 
 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it 
 fulfil the law, judge thee, who through^ the letter and 
 circumcision dost transgress the law?'' Rom. ii, 17—27. 
 In other words, circumcision is but the sign, the thing 
 signified by it is obedience to the law. If you have not 
 this, the sign is made void ; it represents a falsehood. 
 Circumcision therefore belonged to the law, to which it 
 signified obedience. 
 
 Obj. To this it may be replied—‘ Your conclusion 
 must be false : for it contradicts inspired authority. The 
 
 * Tov 6/a y^aiJ.n,arog %ai ‘7rs^iro,ur}g ^a^a(3ary}v vofzov. 
 In these words the command and circumcision are described as a 
 hedge through which the transgressor bursts, in order to transgress. 
 
13 
 
 covenant of circumcision must be the covenant of faith, 
 for Paul declares it to have been ‘the seal of the 
 righteousness of faith, Rom. iv, 11.’ 
 
 (1.) Yes, we reply : but to whom was it a seal of the 
 righteousness of faith ? To all the Jews, or to Abraham 
 alone ? So far from circumcision having that meaning 
 to the Jew in general, Paul speaks of it as one of his 
 merits under the law, and a part of the righteousness 
 of the law. “ If any other man thinketh that he hath 
 whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more ; circum¬ 
 cised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe 
 of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews ; as touching 
 the law, a Pharisee ; concerning zeal, persecuting the 
 church : touching the righteousness which is in the laiu, 
 blameless''* And to this he opposes the righteousness of 
 faith ; telling us, that for Christ’s sake he had surrendered 
 all these things (the merit of circumcision among the 
 number) “ that I may win Christ and be found in him, 
 not having mine own righteousness which is of the 
 law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the 
 righteousness which is of God by faith.” Phil, iii, 4—9. 
 As then circumcision was a part of the righteousness of 
 the law and rejected by Paul on believing in Christ, 
 it could not be to the Jew in general a seal of 
 the righteousness of faith; for if so, on becoming a 
 believer he would have gloried in it, and then first 
 with joy and gratitude have discovered its true 
 meaning. 
 
 (2.) The preceding passage from Romans proves the 
 same thing. Circumcision was so far from signifying 
 the righteousness of faith, that it set and bound a man 
 to keep the law, and the moment that he failed in that, 
 it lost its meaning 1 Had it been the seal of the right¬ 
 eousness of faith, it would have dissuaded a man from 
 attempting to keep the law, and when he felt himself a 
 transgressor, despaired of keeping it, and was led to 
 look out for a better righteousness, its significance, in 
 place of being lost, would have just then come into 
 open view. But the moment he believed in Jesus, in 
 place of its then attaining its height of meaning, as the 
 seal of the covenant by which he was justified, it sunk 
 into positive insignificance. “ For in Christ Jesus 
 
14 
 
 neither circumcision availeih any tiling^ nor uncir¬ 
 cumcision,” Gal. V, 6 ; Rom. ii, 25. 
 
 III. I come now to the direct consideration of the 
 assertion, that circumcision was “ the seal of the 
 righteousness of faith.” And the answer to the objec¬ 
 tion is very simple. It is, that circumcision was the 
 seal of the righteousness of faith, to Abraham alone.* 
 For it occurs only in that chapter which deals con- 
 fessedly and expressedly with Abraham’s individual case 
 alone. Paul had already treated the aspect of circum¬ 
 cision as regarded the Jew generally, in the second 
 chapter, and then starts this objection—“ What ad¬ 
 vantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of 
 circumcision?” At length he wound up his argument 
 by affirming, that both the circumcised Jew and the un¬ 
 circumcised Gentile would be justified by faith: hi, 30. 
 
 But the Jew, though he might receive this statement 
 concerning himself, yet was slow to believe, that none of 
 the holy men of his nation were justified by their merit 
 and works. The apostle therefore presents the especial 
 case of Abraham: (Rom. iv.) And now we shall see a 
 confirmation of what has been observed before: for 
 Paul deals with the question, as though both the Gospel 
 and the law were given to Abraham, and as if we could 
 therefore in this case discern, by which of the two he was 
 justified. That, then, which he sets himself to prove is, 
 that Abraham was not justified by circumcision. This 
 he considers identical with the question whether Abraham 
 was justified by works of the law ? Had Abraham been 
 justified by circumcision, the Apostle virtually admits, that 
 he was justified by works. He admits, and the Jew as¬ 
 sumes, that circumcision was one of the works of the law.\ 
 
 * Thus the fallacy of the argument, logically considered, is Fal- 
 lacia a dicto secundum quid, ad dictum simpliciter. 
 
 f “ Let us remember that circumcision is here regarded, as being, 
 so to speak, the initial work of legal righteousness. For neither did the 
 Jews boast of it as the sign of the grace of God, but as the meritorious 
 observance of the law; therefore they preferred themselves to others, as 
 though possessed of superior excellence before God, We see now, that 
 the question is raised not concerning a single rite alone, but that every 
 kind of legal work is included under one species; that is, whatever 
 might demand reward; and that circumcision is peculiarly mentioned, 
 \iecei.\i^Q\tisthefoundationoflegalrighteousness.'’ Calvin on Rom. iv, 10. 
 
15 
 
 And he labors to prove, that he was not justified thereby ; 
 for, if he had been,—justification by faith had been over¬ 
 thrown, and justification by merit of the law had been 
 brought in. He shews then, that Abraham was justified 
 before he was circumcised ; therefore he was not justified 
 by circumcision. Nay further, he received the promise 
 of the seed and of the inheritance, not through his 
 obedience to that commanded work, but before it, through 
 faith, as is seen in Gen. xv. “ The promise that he 
 should be heir of the world, was not to Abraham or to 
 his seed, through the law (or circumcision) but through 
 the righteousness of faith.” 
 
 But observe, that throughout the argument on justi¬ 
 fication, Abraham’s case alone is presented to us. In 
 Rom. ii, the case of the Jew generally had been decided. 
 That, then, which had been decided before, is not the 
 subject of the fourth chapter. In other words, Abra¬ 
 ham’s case alone is treated. 
 
 “ What shall we say then that Abraham our Father, hath found 
 as pertaining to the flesh ?* For if Abraham were justified by 
 works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what 
 saith the scripture? ^Abraham believed God, and it was counted 
 unto him for righteousness.’ ” 
 
 Paul then observes, that the last expression is a proof 
 that God justified Abraham by faith. And then he 
 adverts to the case of David, who declares that the man 
 is justified and blessed,—not, who never sins—but whose 
 sins were pardoned. This then was a surrender of justi¬ 
 fication by works, and an example of justification by 
 faith. 
 
 “ Cometh then this blessedness upon the circumcision only, or 
 upon the uncircumcision also ? for we say that faith was reckoned 
 to Abraham for righteousness. How was it then reckoned ? When 
 he was in circumcision or in uncircumcision ? Not in circumcision, 
 but in uncircumcision.” 
 
 But the Jew might be ready to ask. If Abraham 
 were justified without circumcision, what was the 
 
 * The order of the Greek requires this, EugJjxsi/a/ x«ra ffa^xcc, 
 See Haldane, &c. So Bloomfield. 
 
16 
 
 good of it to him ? The reply is found in the next 
 words. 
 
 “ And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righte¬ 
 ousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised, that he 
 might he the father of all them that believe, though they he not cir¬ 
 cumcised, that righteousness might be imparted unto them also. 
 And the father of circumcision, to them who are not of the circum¬ 
 cision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father 
 Abraham which he had being yet uncircumcised." 
 
 (a.) Thus the whole has respect to the case of 
 Abraham alone. In his case it might seem as though 
 circumcision were useless; since to him it was not 
 the sign of being bound to the law to seek justifica¬ 
 tion through it; for he was already justified. The 
 apostle, therefore, treats of his case alone, and tells us 
 that TO HIM it was “ a* seal of the righteousness of the 
 faith WHICH HE HAD WHILE UNCIRCUMCISED.” Abra¬ 
 ham had faith before he was circumcised; HIS CHIL¬ 
 DREN WERE ALL CIRCUMCISED BEFORE 
 THEY HAD FAITH, and therefore, before they were 
 righteous by faith. It could not, therefore be to them 
 the seal of their righteousness by faith, as it was to 
 Abraham the seal of his righteousness by faith. 
 
 (b.) But there is another peculiarity in Abraham’s 
 case ; and in circumcision, as applied to him. To him 
 circumcision signified, “ that he should be the 
 FATHER OF ALL THAT BELIEVE.” This privilege is 
 Abraham’s alone. Circumcision as a seal of the right¬ 
 eousness of faith belonged to Abraham as the father of 
 all believers ; and therefore circumcision had this meaning 
 to himself alone. 
 
 (c.) Again, if Abraham’s relation to Hagar was 
 peculiar, his relation to the covenant of circumcision 
 was peculiar also. For his relation to Hagar repre¬ 
 sented his relation to the covenant of circumcision. 
 But the relation of Abraham to Hagar, being that of 
 husband to the wife, was peculiar. Therefore the rela- 
 
 * '2t<p^ciyiha di>t(X,iodvvyj^, Observe, that the first word is 
 without the article, contrary to classic usage, since the article 
 attends on the construct noun. But by this it is intended, I believe, 
 to signify, that it was then “a seal of the righteousness of faith: ” 
 the true seal would be given afterwards. 
 
17 
 
 tion of Abraham to the covenant of circumcision was 
 peculiar also. So with Sarah also; they both were 
 wives of none but Abraham. And none but Abraham 
 was to be their husband. To others, they were 
 related as mothers, not as wives. That is, then, the 
 relationship of Abraham was special, belonging to him¬ 
 self alone ; and what is said of his circumcision, does 
 not apply to his descendants. 
 
 Abraham was to be the father of a double seed ; as 
 he was the head of two covenants, and husband of two 
 wives, by each of which he had a son. He was to be 
 the father of a fleshly seed, of those sprung from his 
 loins. These were the circumcised Israelites, whom 
 the apostle calls his seed the law v, 16. The 
 other seed was to be those who should be sons of Abra- 
 harrCs faith, whether circumcised or uncircumcised. 
 “ Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace, to 
 the end (that) the promise might be sure to all the seed ; 
 not to that only which is of the law (the circumcision) 
 but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham.” 
 And as Abraham has two seeds, so there are two cir¬ 
 cumcisions : one of the flesh for the fleshly seed ; one of 
 t\iQ heart, for the spiritual seed. On the ground of faith 
 alone can Gentile Christians be sons of Abraham. 
 This is the true circumcision, which we who believe 
 partake of. ‘‘ For he is not a Jew who is one out¬ 
 wardly, neither is that circumcision ivhich is outward 
 in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and 
 circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit and not 
 in the letter, whose praise is not of men, but of God 
 Rom. ii, 28, 29. 
 
 I conclude, therefore, that circumcision was the seal 
 of the righteousness of faith, TO ABRAHAM ALONE. 
 
 To return then to the former line of argument. It 
 was shown that circumcision is of the law. The cove¬ 
 nant of circumcision given to Abraham, when expanded 
 and ratified, became the law of 'Moses. But if cir¬ 
 cumcision be of the law, and not of the gospel, the 
 main argument for Infant Baptism is at an end. For 
 it was pleaded that the Abrahamic covenant of circum¬ 
 cision was virtually the gospel, and we have found it to 
 be virtually the law ! Then the question is over. May 
 
18 
 
 we grope our way back to Moses, in order to patch the 
 gospel with the law ? May we mend the coat of skin 
 with the fig leaf ? May we piece the substance with the 
 shadow ? 
 
 1. The question—How shall we act in the matter? 
 has long since been decided for us. A question the 
 same in principle occurred in the early church, and was 
 adjudged by the Holy Ghost. It was proposed in the 
 Apostles’ days to require circumcision of the Gentiles 
 that believed, because the Gospel hope of justification 
 was not sufficient alone. This deadly error was com¬ 
 bated by the Holy Spirit, and ejected everywhere, 
 though we see it perpetually endeavouring to force an 
 entrance. But in our day, not the act of circumcision 
 is pleaded for, but the principles of it. Nor is it de¬ 
 manded as necessary to justification, but to remedy a 
 supposed defect in the law of baptism. 
 
 But in the decision given on the question in its more 
 open form, we shall find the answer to the question 
 propounded now ; and shall discover, as we proceed, 
 confirmatory proofs of the propositions that have been 
 already arrived at. “ Certain men which came down 
 from Judea taught the brethren—Except ye be circum¬ 
 cised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.” 
 “ There rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which 
 believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, 
 and to command them to keep the law of Moses.^' 
 
 Here the identity of the covenant of circumcision with 
 the law of Moses, is assumed as before. But how does 
 inspiration meet the proposal ? Peter replies that it 
 was a ‘tempting God,’ and the putting an intolerable 
 yoke upon the necks of the converts. “Now, therefore, 
 why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the necks of the 
 disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to 
 bear ? ” Acts xv, 10. 
 
 And this was the decision of the whole assembly of 
 apostles and elders : “ Certain which went out from us 
 have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, 
 saying, ye must be circumcised and keep the law; ” 24. 
 Is it then a subversion of the soul to revive the act of 
 circumcision as binding on the Gentile, and yet good 
 Christian doctrine to admit or enforce the principles of 
 
19 
 
 circumcision ? Can it be right to denounce the act, and 
 yet to maintain the principles by which the act is 
 administered ? The condemnation of the whole law of 
 circumcision must be the condemnation of its parts. 
 7b bring in circumcision were, as all confessed in that 
 day, to bring in the law of Moses. May we then 
 bring in a part of the law, though not the whole ? May 
 we set up its principles, though not carry out its acts? 
 Nay, it is either wholly the law, or wholly the gospel ! 
 If you touch any part of the law, you must take up the 
 whole, or be cursed. Gal. x, 3. The act and its regulating 
 principles are of the same kind, If the act be good, 
 so are the regulating principles of the act. If the act 
 be denounced as evil to us, so are the principles of it 
 denounced also. “ If the first fruit be holy, the lump 
 is also holy; and if the root be holy, so are the 
 branches Rom. xi, 16. But the law of circumcision 
 is denounced by inspiration as the yoke of bondage, and 
 the subversion of the soul. So then are the parts of the 
 law—the principles of the act. And even thus does 
 Paul decide, “ Cast out the bondwoman and her son.^^ 
 Such as the son is, such is the mother. Such as the act is, 
 such are the regulating principles by which it is admin¬ 
 istered ; for the hand of God moulded the whole of its 
 law. And if circumcision be rejected, so must the prin¬ 
 ciples of its covenant be cast out too. “ A little leaven,” 
 saith Paul, in writing hereon,‘Teaveneth the whole lump.” 
 To reject the act and to retain its laws, were to cast 
 out the son, and to retain the mother. But the judgment 
 of the scripture is, ‘‘ Cast out the bondwoman and her son?"* 
 2. On another occasion, the apostle enforces the 
 same lessons. In the most energetic language Paul 
 warns the Galatian church. “ Stand fast therefore in 
 the liberty wherewith Christ hath made you free, and 
 be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Be¬ 
 hold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, 
 Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to 
 every man that is circumcised that he is a debtor to do 
 the whole laiv. Christ is become of no effect unto you, 
 whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen 
 from grace:” Gal. v, 1—4. Such language as this, 
 while it in the strongest possible terms reprobates th'^ 
 
20 
 
 act of circumcision, carries with it no less assuredly the 
 condemnation of the principles of circumcision. If the 
 act of circumcision be to the believer an entanglement 
 in the yoke of bondage^ can the laws of circumcision be 
 the principles of freedom ? If the act be apostacy^ can 
 principles regulating the act be edifying in the faiths 
 If the performance of circumcision hound to keep the 
 whole law^ can its principles teach the whole Gospel ? 
 If to be circumcised be to fall from grace, can the law 
 concerning male infants be apart of the covenant of grace‘s 
 
 Could St. Paul have maintained his ground at all 
 against the Jewish teachers on modern pagdobaptist 
 principles ? ‘You must allow,’ they would have said, 
 ‘ that the principles of the covenant of circumcision are 
 to be our guides in baptism. It cannot then be a falling 
 away from grace to carry out the act of circumcision, for 
 the act is but the upshot and expression of the prin¬ 
 ciples : the whole law is of the same character with its 
 parts. What reason then can you give for choosing this 
 portion of the law of circumcision rather than the other ? 
 But Paul’s reply is—‘The whole is deadly—Forbear!’ 
 If circumcision were a seal of the covenant of grace, 
 Paul’s zeal against circumcision is not to be explained. 
 Why might not a man prefer the old seal of the cove¬ 
 nant, to baptism, the new ? or, in proof of his full 
 loyalty to the covenant of grace, accept both the seals ? 
 If the Queen of England were to appoint a new national 
 flag beside the Union Jack, would it be treason to hoist 
 the old one, whether alone or in company with the new ? 
 
 3. The language of Paul, and of the whole New 
 Testament whenever circumcision is spoken of to Gen¬ 
 tiles, is invariably one of warning. “ Beware of dogs ; 
 beware of evil workers, beware of the concision (or 
 ‘mutilation,’ i e. the literal circumcision.) For we 
 are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, 
 and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in 
 the flesh Phil, iii, 2, 3. Were they who preached 
 circumcision then evil workmen^^ of whom the church 
 was to “ beware ? ” And can those who preach the prin¬ 
 ciples of circumcision now be good workmen whom the 
 church is to cherish ? He who is warned against the 
 whole of circumcision is warned against a part. What 
 
21 
 
 would a father think of an adviser, who should express 
 the utmost abhorrence of open infidelity, and his hope 
 that his son would never be found among infidels, and 
 yet advise him to read the works of the deists, and be 
 guided by the regulations of their societies ? What 
 would you • think of the man who should express the 
 greatest abhorrence of Popery, and yet should recom¬ 
 mend you to say Ave-Marias, and to cross yourself? 
 
 4. Agaim I would draw another argument from the 
 inconsistency, the necessary inconsistency, of those who 
 maintain hereby the baptism of infants. They hold 
 that circumcision is abolished by Christ, and has made 
 way for baptism in its stead. Then our duty as regards 
 it, is clear. If the statute be in force, let us keep the 
 act to the letter ! Is it abolished? Then both the act 
 and its law are abolished also. Again, is circumcision 
 abolished by Christ, and yet is circumcision not of the 
 law? Is any part of the covenant of grace abolished 
 by Jesvs? It cannot be. If circumcision, then, be abol¬ 
 ished, it is a proof that it is not of grace, but of the law. 
 
 5. Again, if the principles of the covenant of circum¬ 
 cision are to be our guides, they must all be carried out. 
 You are not at liberty to fasten on one, and let the rest 
 flow by. ( I.) If infants are to be baptized on the strength 
 of it, it can be only male infants ; for these alone are 
 recognized by that cove7iant as subjects of circumcision. 
 (2.) If that is to be our guide, the baptism is to be on 
 the eight day alone, and any time before or after that 
 is a sin. For by what principles of reasoning can we 
 conclude from the command to circumcise male infants 
 at eight days old, that therefore we may baptize female 
 infants at any time we will? (3.) By the same cove¬ 
 nant it follows, that baptism may be compulsory to all 
 the slaves of a master when he believes. Do you start 
 at this ? Nay, but it is a legitimate principle of the 
 same Abrahamic covenant on which you rest! Take 
 all the principles or none I 
 
 6. But the fiaw lies deeper yet What right have we 
 to meddle with the literal provisions of the covenant 
 of circumcision at all! We are not Abraham’s literal 
 seed. We are not descendants of Sarah, Hagar, or Ke- 
 turah. Let the literal seed of Abraham take it 
 
22 
 
 LITERALLY ! The only application of it to us — Abra~ 
 harris spiritual seed—must be spiritual ! And then the 
 argument for infant baptism is at an end: for the infants 
 are spiritual infarits, that is, young believers in Jesus. 
 
 7. The truth is, that the law of baptism stands 
 OPPOSED to that of CIRCUMCISION. Baptism levels 
 distinctions set up in the covenants of Abraham and 
 Moses; and sets up others unknown to them. Circum¬ 
 cision and its law made distinctions—1. Of sex, as male 
 or female. 2. Of natural birth, or nation : as Jewish 
 or Gentile. 3. Of station, as slaves or master. Now 
 Paul contrasts this state of things with what was effected 
 by the law of baptism. After he had discoursed of the 
 shutting up under the law till Christ came, he proceeds— 
 “ Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ 
 Jesus. For as many as were baptized into Christ put 
 on* Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is 
 neither bo7id nor free, there is neither male nor female'. 
 for ye are all one in Christ Jesus,” Gal. iii, 26—28. 
 
 Circumcision was administered exclusively to males. 
 Baptism is administered indiscriminately to males and 
 females. Circumcision was performed indiscriminately 
 as to faith ; on slaves and captives and infants, whatever 
 the state of the parents’ hearts. It is sought to apply 
 baptism exclusively to believers and their children. 
 
 8. But all perplexity is done away, when we see how 
 
 it is that circumcision does apply. The old and sha¬ 
 dowy circumcision was a thing of the flesh and of the 
 letter, Rom. ii, *27. The true circumcision is that of 
 the heart and spirit, 28, 29. Hence Paul barely admits 
 that the literal circumcision is to be so called. “ Ye 
 being Gentiles in the flesh who are called uncircumcision 
 by that which is called the circumcision in the flesh 
 made by Eph. ii, 11. But the circumcision of 
 
 those who believe, is spiritual. “Ye are complete in 
 him, who is the head of all principality and power, in 
 whom also ye were circumcised j" with the circumcision 
 made without hands, in putting oflf the body of the sins 
 of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ,” Col- ii, 10, 
 11. Here Chrises circumcision is ^^ivithout handsf 
 or spiritual; in opposition to Moses^ circumcision which 
 
 * Aorists. f Aorist. 
 
23 
 
 teas with handSy or fleshly. Moses’ circumcision puts off 
 a portion of the flesh ; Christ’s, puts off the body of sin. 
 The law of circumcision then is fulfilled by the believer 
 spiritually. “ For we are the circumcision^ who worship 
 God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have 
 no confidence in the fleshf Phil, iii, 3. But if the law 
 of circumcision is fultilled spiritually in him who believes, 
 it is not to be fulfilled in the literal infant who does not 
 believe. Paul then has decided the question how cir¬ 
 cumcision applies to us. It applies spiritually: and 
 therefore the parties contemplated by it are not infants 
 of the flesh, but spiritual babes in Christ. 
 
 IV. I come now to treat of another of the principles 
 on which the argument for infant baptism is founded. 
 
 ‘ Baptism is the substitute for circumcision, and has 
 taken its place.’ 
 
 1 Now this proposition has been already overthrown 
 by the arguments which manifested, that the' covenant 
 of circumcision is not the same covenant as the gospel, 
 but is indeed the law. If then circumcision belongs to 
 the laio, and baptism to the gospel, it is manifest that 
 baptism is not the substitute for circumcision. They 
 belong to two different economies, and one can never 
 stand in the place of the other. 
 
 2. This idea wars also against plain fact. If baptism 
 had been the substitute for circumcision, it would not 
 have begun till circumcision had ceased, nor would bap¬ 
 tism have been applied to those who were already cir¬ 
 cumcised. The establishment of the one had been the 
 removal of the other. But nothing like this took place I 
 Baptism began in John Baptist’s day, and was carried 
 on by the Saviour while circumcision was still in full 
 authority. It was by God’s command required of those 
 already circumcised, and submitted to by them. After 
 the Savior’s ascension, on the day of Pentecost the Jews 
 who believed, although circumcised, were baptized. 
 
 3. So far from this doctrine being held in apostles’ 
 days, the Pharisees aimed at bringing Gentile believers 
 under the yoke of circumcision. 
 
 4. Nor at the council of Jerusalem', do apostles even 
 hint, that baptism had come in the; place of circumcision, 
 and that therefore baptized Gentiles had no need of cir- 
 
24 
 
 cumcision ; though this would have been the most natural 
 and direct answer. Nor does Paul notice this obvious 
 argument in his epistle to the Galatians, even though the 
 Judaizers sought to compel Titus to be circumcised. 
 
 5. Nay further, Paul, that stout champion for gospel 
 liberty, himself circumcised Timothy, (Acts xvi, 3,) 
 though doubtless he had been baptized before as a 
 “ disciple” of the Lord Jesus.^ 
 
 6. Nay, and we learn farther, that so far from ac¬ 
 counting circumcision to be set aside by baptism, the 
 believing Jews still circumcised their children, and im¬ 
 puted it as a high crime and misdemeanor to Paul, that 
 he taught the Jews of the dispersion to give up this 
 practice. Now paedobaptists would say, Paul was per¬ 
 fectly right in doing so. But no I First the information 
 was false; Paul had not so taught them. Secondly, the 
 apostles would have condemned him, had he done so. 
 Thirdly, at the suggestion of the other apostles, Paul 
 took a mode of showing them that his doctrine was no 
 such thing, but that he himself kept the law, and could 
 not therefore teach any Jews to break it by setting aside 
 circumcision. Therefore circumcision is of the law, and 
 baptism does not occupy its place. The apostles in 
 urging him to this, make the concession for which 
 Paul contended, that the Gentiles should be free. This 
 being granted him, he felt able to acquiesce as a Jew in 
 the rites given to his nation. “All may know that those 
 things whereof they were informed concerning thee, are 
 nothing; but that thou thyself walkest orderly and 
 keepest the law. As touching the Gentiles which believe 
 we have written and concluded that they observe no 
 such thing,” (as circumcision,) Acts xxi, 21—25. 
 
 What can more clearly confute the idea in question 
 than this scene and statement ? Baptism is applied to 
 the circumcised I Circumcision is maintained a,nd prac¬ 
 tised even by the baptized! Believing Pharisees desire 
 to add circumcision to the Gentiles, as a distinct rite 
 carrying with it another doctrine. Nay, and while 
 
 * Some have wondered at the seeming inconsisteney of Paul in 
 these two instances. But Timothy was circumcised, because his 
 mother was a Jewess, Acts, xvi, 1. Titus was not, because he was 
 wholly a Gentile, Gal. ii. 3. 
 
25 
 
 apostles oppose this their design, they do it on another 
 principle altogether. And in place of confessing that 
 baptism was the seal of the covenant of mercy and the 
 gospel, they denounce circumcision as bringing with it 
 another covenant and an intolerable yoke ! 
 
 V. Next, baptism is not a seal at all. 
 
 First, let us for a moment grant, both that baptism 
 takes the place of circumcision, and that it is the seal 
 of the righteousness of faith ; still the baptism of the 
 believer only will follow. For Abraham is the pattern 
 of our justification by faith, and therefore of the affixing 
 of the seal of that righteousness which belongs to his 
 spiritual seed. But Abraham “ received the sign of 
 circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which 
 \iQ\i 2 idi yet being uncircumcised. Therefore his spiritual 
 seed should receive ‘ the sign of baptism, a seal of the 
 righteousness of the faith which they have yet being un- 
 baptized.^ Not till after faith then ought they to be 
 sealed. ‘In whom also, after that ye believed, ye 
 WERE sealed,” Eph. i. 13. But then infant baptism is 
 destroyed, for in this the sealing precedes faith, 
 
 2. But next we withdraw our momentary admission. 
 There is no proof that ever it is so called in Scripture ; 
 of which take Baxter, (a psedobaptist,) as a witness. 
 “ Some sober men, no way inclined to anabaptism, do 
 think that we ought not to call the sacraments seals, as 
 being a thing not to be proved by the Word.”* 
 
 3. It has not the nature of a seal. For a seal is a 
 
 visible, permanent impression, annexed to a covenant, 
 order, or promise. Such was circumcision. But bap¬ 
 tism leaves no perceptible, no permanent trace. The 
 baptized are not distinguisluible from the unbaptized. It 
 is not therefore a seal at all. But has the new covenant 
 then no seal ? Yes, the gifts of the Holy Ghost; as 
 scripture more than once testifies. “In whom also 
 after that ye believed ye were sealed with the Holy 
 Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inherit¬ 
 ance until the redemption of the purchased possession,” 
 Eph. i, 13. “Grieve not the Holy Spirit of Got/whereby 
 (by whom) ye were sealed unto the day of redemption,” 
 Eph. iv. 30. “ He that anointed us is God, who also 
 
 * Apology against Mr. Blake, p. 116, s. 61. 
 
sealed* us and gave *lis the earnest of the Spirit va our 
 hearts,” 2 Cor. i. 22. With this seal was Jesus himself 
 ineffably impressed. “For him God the Father sealed'^ 
 *John vi, 27. “ For God giveth not the Spirit by 
 
 measure unto him,” John iii, 34. “ God anointed Jesus 
 
 of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power,” 
 Acts X, 3. ^ 
 
 VI. Much less is baptism of the same import as 
 circumcision. 
 
 Circumcision intimated the necessity of the sancti- 
 Jication of the flesh, and the removal of its evil 
 desires, and of the evil heart of unbelief. Hence those 
 under justiflcation by their obedience are commanded to 
 carry out its significance; as we read—“Circumcisethere¬ 
 fore the foreskin of your heart emA beno more stiffnecked^' 
 Deut. X, 16. “If they shall confess their iniquity and 
 the iniquity of their fathers, with their trespass which 
 they trespassed against me, and that they also have walked 
 
 contrary to me.If then their uncircumcised heart 
 
 he humbled^ and they then accept of the punishment of 
 their iniquity, then will I remember my covenant 
 with Jacob,” Lev xxvi, 40—42. Here “uncircumcised” 
 is equivalent to “unsanctified ;” for under the law, holiness 
 was to be the way to justification. So again—“ To whom 
 shall I speak, and give warning that they may hear ? 
 Behold their ear is uncircumcised and they cannot hearken: 
 behold the word of the Lord is unto them a reproach ; 
 they have no delight in it f Jer, vq 10. So fora final 
 instance of circumcision signifying sanctification. “ Ye 
 stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do 
 always resist the Holy Ghost," Acts vii, 51. 
 
 Circumcision signified the trial of man by the at¬ 
 tempted removal of the evil of the flesh. 
 
 But does baptism signify this ? Nay, it signifies that 
 the flesh is incurably evil, and no more to be put upon 
 its trial, but buried out of sight. Hence God sent baptism 
 first to Israel, with the declaration that they were all 
 sinners, and that their hopes of justification by Moses’ 
 law were vain. It was sent with the cry—“Repent 
 ye !” Now repentance is the overthrow of hope from 
 the law, for it implies the confession of sin. While then 
 
 * Aorists. 
 
27 
 
 hircumcision is the sign of the law's hope^ baptism is its 
 destruction 1 Baptism is a burial into the death of Jesus 
 Christ. “ So many of us as were baptized into Jesus 
 Christ were baptized into his death. Therefore we were 
 buried* with him by baptism into death,” Rom vi, 3, 4; 
 Col. ii, 12. Does circumcision signify this? Baptism 
 signifies our justification in Christ through death and 
 resurrection with Jesus. Does circumcision signify this? 
 Baptism signifies the W’^ashing away of sins, Acts xxi, 
 16 ; ii, 38. Where does circumcision signify this? The 
 law does not admit of the confession of sin, without the 
 curse. Circumcision does not testify the pardon of sin. 
 It began before sin was actual, in the infant of eight 
 days old. 
 
 Obj. ‘But this view of yours makes the privileges of 
 the gospel narrower, and its mercy more exclusive, than 
 under the law.’ 
 
 This is a strange objection. First, as to privilege. 
 What you call a privilege, Peter and Paul call a yoke. 
 Acts XV, 1, 10 ; Gal. v, 1—3. Circumcision, observe, 
 was enjoined under the threat of cutting off. Are 
 privileges required of men under penalty ? Next, as to 
 the mercy being narrower. Which is widest, the mercy 
 that extends only to the Jew, or that which welcomes 
 believers, male or female of every nation under heaven, 
 whether Jew or Gentile, barbarian or Scythian, bond or 
 free ? 
 
 VII. Again, some have pleaded that in Abraham’s 
 day a divinely appointed spiritual connexion subsisted 
 between parents and their children, a connexion which 
 continues till now. (1) This is not true. There ivas 
 no spiritual connexion between even Abraham and 
 his natural seed Infants, even of Abraham’s family, 
 were rejected. What spiritual connexion was there 
 between Abraham and his son Ishmael, or between 
 Abraham and that “ profane person Esau ?” (2) John 
 
 the Baptist in his preaching vigorously assailed and de¬ 
 molished this refuge of error. Think not to say within 
 yourselves. We have Abraham for our father." “If ye 
 were Abraham’s children, ye would do the deeds of 
 Abraham:” John viii, 39. (3) And Paul, treading in 
 
 *■ Aorist. 
 
28 
 
 the same steps, assures us, that Abraham was not counted 
 the father of those that naturally sprung from him, 
 unless, beside their circumcision, they had faith also. 
 (4) And the same thing is more evident still. Are all 
 the sons of believing parents believers ? Far from it, 
 Grace does not run in the line of natural generation and 
 birth. “ That which is born of the flesh is (only) fleshy 
 The connexion, then, is not that of the spirit. Let the 
 question of election come in, and the cause of Infant 
 Baptism yawns with a yet wider and deeper gulf. You 
 must tell us which among the seed of believers will 
 be saved, before this prelitninary difficulty is got rid of. 
 Not that even the certainty of election were enough. 
 Even the knowledge by inspiration that a child was 
 regenerate, were not enough. Baptism hangs on “ the 
 answer of a good conscience.” 
 
 Finally, it has been shown, that there were two 
 covenants with Abraham, by both external and internal 
 proofs; and that the covenant of circumcision, from 
 which the argument for Infant Baptism is derived, is not 
 the gospel but the law. This has been proved, by the 
 words of the Savior, the admissions and belief of the 
 apostolic church, by Paul’s argument against the right¬ 
 eousness of the law, his exhortations against circumcision, 
 and by his statement of it as a merit of the law. 
 
 It has been proved, that circumcision was not the seal 
 of the righteousness of faith to any but Abraham—his 
 standing being altogether peculiar, and different from 
 that of his fleshly descendants; for he was justified 
 before circumcision, the only father of all believers, and 
 head of the two covenants. 
 
 It has been manifested, that the parts of the law of 
 circumcision are to be rejected—from the rejection of the 
 whole by the council at Jerusalem, from Paul’s testimony 
 that it bound to the law, and that its fulfilment in us is 
 spiritual. 
 
 It was proved, that the pgedobaptist argument is in¬ 
 consistent. For if circumcision be abolished, then is it 
 a thing of the law, and its force to us is null; while if 
 it be in force, males only are to be baptized and on the 
 eighth day. It was shown, that the principles of circum¬ 
 cision and baptism, far from being alike, are contrasted. 
 
29 
 
 That Baptism is rivot the substitute of circumcision, 
 was proved, from their belonging to two different cote¬ 
 nants, and from its contradiction to facts. That it is not 
 a seal was shown, from the confessed deficiency of scrip¬ 
 ture proof, and from its not having the nature of a seal. 
 It was evinced, that it was not of the same import, either 
 as it regards justification or sanctification. 
 
 Lastly, it was argued, that there is no spiritual con¬ 
 nexion between believing parents and their seed, from 
 Abraham’s history, John the Baptist’s appeal, Jesus’ 
 declaration, Paul’s denial, and present fact. 
 
 Let none mistake the bearing of the present argu¬ 
 ment. It is not simply intended to show, that the 
 argument from the Abrahamic covenant is inconclusive. 
 That, indeed, is one branch of the proof. For, 
 
 If the covenant of circumcision be virtually the law— 
 if it be abolished —or if baptism be not the substitute for 
 circumcision, the argument from the Abrahamic cove¬ 
 nant of circumcision is broken If circumcision be a 
 deadly chaining to the law—a falling from grace—con¬ 
 demned by the council at Jerusalem—the subject of 
 Paul’s energetic warnings—if it be the bondwoman that 
 is to be cast out—if its principles are opposed in all the 
 great distinctions to those of baptism—on all or any of 
 these grounds, the argument for Infant Baptism from the 
 covenant of circumcision, is not only good for nothing, 
 but to be abandoned by all who reverence God’s word. 
 
 But the argument concludes also in favor of the 
 BAPTISM OP BELIEVERS. If circumcisiou be to us 
 spiritual, the subjects of it must be spiritual infants, or 
 young converts. If the believer be Abraham’s spiritual 
 seed, circumcision is to be regarded by him spiritually, 
 and thus the literal infant of the covenant of circum¬ 
 cision becomes the spiritual infant, or “one of these 
 little ones that believe,” as before ; and the baptism of 
 believers is proved. If the case of Abraham’s justifica¬ 
 tion be, as the apostle teaches, the pattern for all the 
 justified by faith—if Paul’s words are to be our guide, 
 '''' afUr that ye believed ye were sealed ^^—the seal is not 
 to be affixed till after faith. Thus, while the covenant 
 of circumcision does not conclude for Infiint Baptism, it 
 positively concludes for the baptism of believers only ! 
 
30 
 
 Brethren in the Lord, search and see ! Are you not, 
 in upholding the covenant of circumcision, infecting 
 the Gospel with the leaven of the law ? that leaven 
 which was so carefully purged out by Paul ? Are you 
 not in the Scripture view 'preaching circumcision^ the 
 very rumor of which Paul so strongly puts away from 
 himself? Gal. v, 11. John the Baptist was com¬ 
 missioned to throw down the doctrine that parentage is 
 efficacious in the Gospel dispensation. Are you not build¬ 
 ing it again ? Have you not been introducing a part of 
 that which the Apostles rejected wholly at the great 
 council of Jerusalem ? Are not the members of Christ 
 to be living stones alone, and not the children of the 
 flesh ? Is not the essence of baptism, that which an 
 infant can never have—the answer of a good conscience 
 before God ? Can you therefore— dare you^ remem¬ 
 bering 'whose servants you are^ go on either to preach or 
 uphold the baptism of unbelieving infants'^ 
 
 Search and look; for of these things you must give 
 account! How sad to find, in the day that shall try 
 your work, that you have built up hay and stubble on 
 the true foundation, to see your work burned, and to 
 suffer loss by Christ’s sentence I Be warned ! 
 
 THE END. 
 
 J. FLETCHER, PRINTER, MARKET PLACE, NORWICH. 
 
®oi(l!;) % ilie sanr£ §ntlIroi[, 
 
 SOLD BY 
 
 J. FLETCHER, NORWICH. 
 
 In case any difficulty occurs in obtaining any of Mr. Govetfs 
 publications through the London Booksellers, it is requested that 
 a letter be addressed to J. Fletcher, Norwich, who will send 
 them by post on receipt of remittance. 
 
 Isaiah Unfulfilled. 8vo. Price 10s. 6d. Nishet ^ Co. 
 
 The Revelation of St. John, Literal and Future. Price 
 6s. 6d. Hamilton ^ Co. 
 
 Calvinism, by Calvin : with an Introductory Essay by the j 
 
 Editor.- 18mo. Price 2s. 
 
 Entrance into the Kingdom; or Reward According to 
 Works. 1st and 2nd Series. Price 3s. 6d. each. 
 
 Nishet ^ Co. 
 
 The Saint’s Rapture to the Presence of the Lord Jesus. 
 
 Price 6s. Nishet 8^ Co. 
 
 The Locusts, the Horsemen, and the Two Witnesses; or 
 the Apocalyptic Systems of the Revs. Dr. Cumming, 
 Dr. Keith, and E. B. Elliott, proved unsound. Price 
 2s. Nishet Co. 
 
 The Popes not the Man of Sin; an Answer to the Publi¬ 
 cations of Dr. Cumming, Dr. Morison, and the Rev. 
 
 E. B. Elliott, on that subject. Price 3s. 
 
 Gospel Analogies : and other Sermons. 12mo. Price 7s. 
 
 Hamilton ^ Co. 
 
 The Gifts of the Holy Ghost and Miracle essentially con¬ 
 nected with Justification by Faith. Price 9d. 
 
 Not Water Baptism but the Gifts of the Holy Spirit the 
 Baptism of Christ Price Is, 
 
 NORWICH GOSPEL TRACTS. 
 
 No. 1. Advice to the Debtor. Price 6d. per doz. | 
 
 No. 2. The Runaway Slave. Price 6d. per doz. j 
 
 No. 3. The Crucified Three. Price 6d. per doz. j 
 
 No. 4. How to be saved. Price 2d. i 
 
 No. 5. The Gospel of the Passover. Price Id. ^ 
 
 No. 6. Faith. Price 6d. per doz. 
 
 The Best Mode of Presenting the Gospel. Price 4d. 
 
 Gospel Hymns. Price Is. 3d. 
 
TRACTS ON BAPTISM, &c. 
 
 The Principal Arguments from Scripture in favor of Infant 
 Baptism Considered. Price Id. 
 
 Baptism Foreshadowed by Noah’s Salvation in the Ark. 2d. 
 The Passage through the Bed Sea a Type of Baptism. 2d. 
 “ At any rate Infant Baptism is not Forbidden.” Price Id, 
 Sin after Baptism; or a Long-Neglected Command of the 
 Lord Jesus, recommended to llelievers. Price 2d. 
 Open or Strict Communion? Judgment pronounced on 
 the Question by the Lord Jesus Himself. Price 3d. 
 Infant Baptism and the Abrahamic Covenant. Second 
 Edition. Price 3d. 
 
 The Baptismal Services of the Church of England Con- 
 ! sidered. Price 3d. 
 
 “Your Children Holy;” or were Infants Baptized in 
 Apostles’ days ? Price 2d. 
 
 TRACTS ON THE PARABLES. 
 
 The Mustard Seed. Price 2d. The Leaven. Price 3d. 
 The Hid Treasure. Price 2d. 
 
 The Pearl. Price 2d. The Drag Net. Price 3d. 
 
 These may be had bound in One Volume. Price Is. 6c?. 
 Wine and its Bottles, a Truth for the Times. Price 3d. 
 The Lamp and its Stand. Price Id., or 9d. per doz. 
 
 I 
 
 i PROPHETIC. 
 
 The Prophecy on Olivet; or Matt, xxiv and xxv Expounded. 
 
 Price 2s. %d. This may be had in Parts, at 4c?. each. 
 
 The Groaning Creation Delivered. Price 3d. 
 
 The Future Apostacy. Price 4d. 
 j Babylon Mystical and Babylon Literal. Price 3d, 
 
 MISCELLANEOUS. 
 
 Address to Plymouth Brethren on Ministry and Gift. 3d. 
 The Church Government of the New Testament. Price 2d. 
 
 I Beward According to Works. Price l|d. 
 
 Are Oaths Lawful for a Christian ? Price 2d. 
 Vegetarianism. Price l|d. [each. 
 
 The Church of Old. In 1 vol. 2s. 6d., or in 3 parts 6d. 
 The Spirits in Prison. Price 4d. 
 
 The Septenary Arrangement of Scripture. Price 4d. 
 Twofoldness of Divine Truth. Price 3d. 
 
 W’’arrant of Scripture that all Believers are not Equal. 2d. 
 Warrant of Scripture concerning New Testament Priest¬ 
 hood. Price Id. 
 
 Parents Addressed. Price 2d,