"circumcision, this eighth day, that is, the next day to "the sabbath, or Lord's day, was signified in the 66 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 spirit"ual 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 per❝son is to be called common or unclean." "(f)

JUSTIN MARTYR says, "We also who by him have "had access to God, have not received this carnal cir"cumcision, 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 re"ceive it by the same way." A work entitled "Ques❝tions 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

Wall's Hist. Chap. 6. Sect. 1.

(1) Wall's Hist. Chap, 2. Sect. 1. 2.

(g) p. 103.

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 es"tablished in the Christian church, in the place of cir❝cumcision 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 66 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 bapti

zing 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" 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 re"ceived it by baptism." Epiphanius calls baptism Cyprian calls it "the They all used this lan

"the truth of" circumcision.

"substance" of circumcision. guage, 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.

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 acknow

ledgment of a military substitute; and that this doctrine, so far from being invented by Calvin and Beza, is as old as Christian baptism itself. It has been also shewn that the truth of this proposition, as well as the former, is ratified by the great Dr. Gill, who, in speaking of the covenant, doctrines, and ORDINANCES of the New Testament, says, "There have been THE SAME THINGS FOR "SUBSTANCE in former ages." "These, in some sense, are all old things, and indeed are THE SAME IN SUBSTANCE."(a) We shall, therefore, consider it as proved that Jewish circumcision before Christ, and Christian baptism after Christ, are one and the same seal IN SUBSTANCE, though in different forms.

PROPOSITION IV.

THE ADMINISTRATION OF THIS SEAL TO INFANTS WAS ONCE ENJOINED BY DIVINE AUTHORITY; THAT IS, GOD ONCE COM

MANDED IT.

It has already been shewn that Abraham and his seed were divinely constituted a visible church of God; that the Christian church is a branch of the Abrahamic church; or, in other words, the Jewish society before Christ, and the Christian society after Christ, are one and the same church in different administrations, and that Jewish circumcision before Christ, and Christian baptism after Christ, are one and the same seal in substance, though not in form. The command for ad

(a) Gill on Eccles, i. 9.

M m