church, enjoyed among other things the outward ordinance of infant circumcision, while only some enjoyed the inward circumcision of the spirit;' this being the case, there is no inconsistency in administering baptism to infants now, who are outwardly and by descent in covenant with God, even though it should turn out that these do not all become the subjects of saving grace.' Now all reasoning of this sort, is manifestly irrelevant and valueless, unless it can be shown, that the Jewish and Christian churches are of the same constitution and nature; or, that the one is really a continuation of the other but it has already been proved that they are materially different; and you do not require to be reminded, that the one is a continuation of the other, simply as the substance is a continuation of the shadow. The church of Israel was a type of the new Testament church, and though both are called the kingdom of God, they are such in a very different The one was a kingdom of this world, the other was not the former, by its constitution included carnal members, the latter recognizes none but such as are born of the spirit.' How obviously fallacious then, with these differences existing, to argue on the supposition that the two churches are the same! Such reasoning assumes also, that baptism having come in the room of circumcision, it is quite valid to deduce an inference from the former, and apply it to the latter;-an assumption wholly unfounded, as I hope in the sequel, satisfactorily to show. In so far as it can be advanced, indeed, with any degree of accuracy, that the one ordinance has come in the room of the other (which is true in no other sense than this, that as circumcision was the initiatory rite of Judaism, so is baptism that of Christianity) if we keep in view the distinction made by the apostle Paul (see Rom. ix. Gal. iii. iv.) between 'the children of the flesh,' and the children of the spirit,' it

sense.

is obvious, that the argument founded on the supposed connexion between the two ordinances, has no force.

It will by no one, I presume, be questioned, that circumcision, as well as the other institutions of the Mosaic law, had both a letter and a spirit; i. e. both a literal and a typical or spiritual meaning. Thus, the earthly inheritance of Canaan itself was a type of the heavenly inheritance; and the temporal relation in which Jehovah stood to the Israelites, first by the covenant of circumcision, and subsequently, by the covenant at Sinai, was a type of the spiritual relation in which God stands by the new covenant, to all who are the spiritual children of Abraham, by imitating his faith in trusting the divine promises, whether they be Jews or Gentiles. In like manner, we are taught by Paul, (Rom. ii. 25,) that he was not a Jew who was only one outwardly; inasmuch as that which was merely outward in the flesh, was not real circumcision. But that he was a Jew who was one inwardly, and that true circumcision of the heart, i. e. spiritual not literal.

Now as we are assured, God has had a faithful people in all ages, both under the Mosaic law, and also anterior to that economy, it may be readily conceived, that as circumcision had both a letter and a spirit, it had a literal sense in relation to the fleshly seed' of Abraham, and a spiritual sense in reference to his spiritual seed.' But we are not authorized to found on this circumstance, an argument in support of baptizing infants under the gospel dispensation; for baptism has not, like circumcision, a letter and a spirit, but is a sign of spiritual blessings alone and we learn, in accordance with this meaning of the ordinance, that the subjects of baptism are those only, who through crediting the divine testimony, become the spiritual children of Abraham. 'Know ye, therefore, (says the Apostle,) that they who are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.' Gal. iii. 7.

It is thus obvious, that as circumcision belonged to the natural descendants of Abraham, under the old covenant, whether carnal or spiritual, so baptism belongs to his spiritual seed under the new ;—and to them exclusive of all others. The former were known by birth; the latter cannot be known by natural descent, but solely by their personal belief and profession of the gospel. All reasoning, accordingly, which confounds circumcision, that had a literal sense in relation to the carnal seed of Abraham, and a mystical sense in relation to his spiritual seed, with baptism, which has a spiritual meaning alone, and that only in relation to spiritual subjects, is manifestly inconclusive.

I am, &c.

LETTER V.

MY DEAR FRIEND,

Mr.

The next statement I find in

's notes is, that Baptism has come in the place of circumcision. For the latter has been repealed, according to Acts xv. 24, 29; and baptism is called the circumcision of Christ, in Col. ii. 11, 12.' As this notion of baptism having come in the room of circumcision, and having been regarded by the apostles as its substitute, seems to be a principal link in the chain of reasoning, on which pædobaptists chiefly rely, you will probably expect me to examine this part of the subject more carefully, than its importance, in the view of many, demands. Without professing to follow closely the common track of writers on the subject, I shall, accordingly, adduce a few leading points of scriptural evidence, by means of which, you will have no difficulty, I trust, in ascertaining whether the notion in question has any foundation in Scripture.

There are some pædobaptists, who as they regard the kingdom of Christ as not of this world: and hold in consistency with this, that its subjects are not entitled to spiritual privileges, and ought not to be recognized as members of a Christian church, on the ground of parental connexion, but solely on that of personal religion, must readily feel the force of the arguments adduced in my last letter. While such, however, will admit that these arguments satisfactorily refute the views maintained by Mr. and the advocates of national estab

T

lishments of religion, they may dispute whether they have a direct bearing on their more enlightened views. But the ensuing reasoning will be found applicable not less to congregationalists and other pædobaptists, who profess to recognize the spiritual nature of the new dispensation, than to the adherents of parochial or national systems of Christianity.

I remark then, in the first place, that though in the passage, Col. ii. 11, 12, which is usually referred to, as authorizing the notion in question, believers of the gospel are stated to be circumcised in Christ, this circumcision is expressly called a circumcision made without hands,' evidently to distinguish it from that made with hands, which was its type. The circumcision spoken of accordingly, cannot be baptism; inasmuch, as it is not without hands. What is meant obviously is, 'the putting off the sins of the flesh,' or the renewal of the heart; in other words, the circumcision of Moses was a figure of moral renovation, which is here termed the circumcision of Christ.

What follows respecting baptism in the 12th verse, is additional and from both verses, we learn, that while baptism and circumcision correspond thus far in meaning, that they both relate to the renewal of the heart; instead of the former coming in the room of the latter, it was the circumcision made without hands, or renovation of character, that came in the room of the Mosaic rite. As all Jewish males were circumcised in the flesh, so all Christians are circumcised in heart. Circumcision and the other Mosaic ordinances, were succeeded, not by corresponding rites, but by their emblematical meaning being fulfilled in the realities of the gospel. They were a shadow of good things to come; the body of which is Christ.

It is thus manifest, that the notion of ' baptism having come in the place of circumcision,' derives no support from the passage referred to as authorizing it: it is common, however, for