And this is a very important fact, because it turns the silence of other primitive Christian writers upon the subject into proofs of our position. The fact before us proves the practice; and their silence proves their acquiescence in, and approbation of, the practice. It is just a case wherein silence proves consent.

Upon the supposition here advocated, of the Jewish pattern having been followed, and the Jewish practice adopted, the period of the first introduction of infant baptism into the Church would not and could not be determined and specified; because it must have taken place gradually as children were born to parents who had themselves been baptized as adults. In this case we should not be likely to have any distinct record about the matter until some occasion of discussion arose; and then the terms of the discussion would take for granted the existence of the practice, and not treat it as anything requiring apology or defence. And such exactly is the state of the case, corroborating, in the most unsuspicious manner, the correctness of our supposition and the conclusiveness of our argument.

St. Paul treats the subject of circumcision in immediate connexion with the person of Christ; stating, first a fact, and then two consequences resulting from that fact. He says that "Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God; and then he adds the twofold end attained by this, "to confirm the promises made unto the fathers; and that the Gentiles might glorify God for His mercy."1

This

The child Jesus was circumcised as a matter of course. followed from His birth in the Jewish Church, made of a Jewish woman, made under the Jewish law. This ordinance of the law was administered in what He Himself afterwards called the fulfilment of all righteousness. He thus became "a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God."

This is the fact; and it speaks clearly, we may observe, the high and fundamental truth of substitution. Circumcision was a bloody ordinance, and full of very expressive meaning as applied to sinful man, who is born in corruption, and grows up a slave to the lusts of his flesh. But where was the meaning of 1 Rom. xv. 8, 9. 2 St. Luke ii. 21; Gal. iv. 4.

applying it to a person who was altogether free from sin-holy, harmless, undefiled? The answer is, He was from the first "made sin for us." The discipline, pain, chastisement, bloodshedding, or by whatever other name or names it may be called, which was most righteously deserved by our iniquities, was laid on Him. Nothing of the kind was deserved by Him, yet everything of the kind was inflicted upon Him.

The consequences of His circumcision, as here stated by the apostle, were

(1) To confirm the promises made to the Jewish fathers.

The promises referred to are those, of course, which are written in the Old Testament, and the place therein where we first find them in connexion with circumcision, is the seventeenth chapter of Genesis. In that chapter there are, as we have already noticed, two distinct heads of promise; the one referring to the multitude of Abraham's offspring in Christ; the other, to the possession of the land of Canaan. These are included in one covenant, and the token of the covenant was circumcision. The first of these was a repetition of what had been already promised to him, and what he had already believed (chap. xv.) This is proved to have been the gospel (Gal. iii. 8). The great blessing of the gospel was bestowed upon Abraham while he was uncircumcised. That blessing is gracious reconciliation to and fellowship with God, through faith in God's word, whether it be a word of prophecy, or a word of history. The work of Jesus Christ in our nature was, in the days of Abraham, a word of prophecy: Abraham believed it, in the sense of relying upon it, saw the day of Christ afar off, and was glad, having peace with God. The work of Jesus Christ in our nature is now a word of history, and all who believe it in like manner, that is, in the sense of relying on it, enter into the same peace.1

The permanent, peaceful, and holy possession of the land of Canaan by the Jewish nation was then a word of prophecy. Abraham believed it, giving glory to God. Whatever partial fulfilment it may have had, or, to speak more correctly, whatever earnest of its fulfilment may have been given, under David,

1 St. John viii. 56; Rom. iv. 20-25.

or Solomon, or Hezekiah, it is, in its true import, a word of prophecy still, and to believe it, without a question, is to give glory to the divine veracity.

This explains the religion of Abraham during several years previous to the institution of circumcision. The promises of God were made to him. He believed them, and, through confidence of heart in God's word, the blessing promised was reckoned to him as possessed. The seat of his religion was his heart; and as yet there was no corresponding or significant symbol of it in his flesh; no outward ratification of it to his sight. The permanence of such a state of things is quite conceivable, and spiritual minds may imagine its sufficiency also, for all the purposes of true religion. But we have now to do, not with imaginations, but with facts.

Instead of leaving matters so, it pleased God, previous to the death of Abraham, to establish an outward and visible ordinance as a sign, and as a seal. Thus the apostle writes: Abraham "received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had, yet being uncircumcised." As circumcision was significant of the change of character produced in Abraham, it was a sign. It was a sign of the cutting off of the sins of the flesh. He had the thing signified in its spiritual influence before he had the sign of it, and the sign was added for his instruction. It was not only a sign of his profession as a Jew, distinguishing him, and to distinguish his seed, from the uncircumcised nations of mankind-this was indeed a further purpose intended by it--but it was a sign of the change in his character which had been already effected by faith in God's word.

So far, considered as a sign, the thing seems plain enough. But how was it a seal? A seal authenticates an agreement already made; and in point of fact, the agreement must be made and mutually consented to by both parties, before it is in a condition to be sealed. Circumcision, appointed by God for a sign, and visibly authenticating His promise to all who had the thing signified, became to them a seal-a seal of the righteousness of

Rom. iv. 11.

the faith which they had before they received the sign. Thus circumcision was a sign of man's changed character, and a seal of God's gracious promise. It did not change the character, but was a sign of the change. It did not entitle to the promise, but to every one already changed and receiving the sign, it did actually and visibly seal the promise.

This is simple in the case of Abraham, and of all who have the thing signified, before they receive the sign.1 All such persons believe the promises of God, and are personally interested; ie., the agreement is mutually consented to-before they receive the seal. In such cases, the sign is received, a seal of the blessing enjoyed, while as yet there was no sign. But this simplicity seems to be destroyed, the natural and beautiful order reversed, and the whole affair thrown into unintelligible confusion, by giving this sign and seal to unconscious infants of a week old. I am free to confess that with the history of Abraham alone before me, and the commentary of St. Paul upon it, I would not à priori have anticipated the circumcision of infants. But here again we are met by facts. The history of Abraham does not stand alone. The fact that infants were circumcised, and by especial divine commandment, cannot be disputed; though the principle on which it was done may be mistaken. Perhaps that principle is not fully and clearly revealed, since God requires ef us confidence in His wisdom; obedience of faith, as well as obedience of reason. I have already adverted to one ground of reason for this appointment, viz., the connexion between parent and child, so that the root-the believing parent-being holy, the branch also is holy. It is not to be expected that this will satisfy all minds. The fact, however, remains as God's own appointment; and that there is good and sufficient reason for it is to be believed, whether we can discern it to our own intelligent satisfaction or not.

What then was circumcision to the men of Shechem, who received it, not in consequence of any spiritual change of character, but entirely at the instance of their young prince Hamor, himself induced by mere human affection? It was a sign of a change of character which they did not possess; and to them it was a seal of nothing, because there was nothing to seal, no agreement between them and the God of Israel. (See Gen. xxxiv.)

Our Lord Jesus Christ, by being circumcised as He was, gave all the weight of His authority and divine mission to the blessings and promises of the Old Testament; and also to the instituted sign of the blessing, and seal of the promise; and further, to the application of the sign and seal to an infant. Thus He "confirmed the promises made to the fathers;" and as among these were included the gospel promise to all nations, so among the results from the circumcision of Christ is included

(2) "That the Gentiles should glorify God for His mercy." It thus appears, and the conclusion is very important, that circumcision was connected with the covenant of grace in the gospel, and not merely with the covenant of the land of Canaan. On these grounds we justify the analogy above stated, between the mode of discipling the Jewish nation, from Abraham till Christ, and the mode of discipling all nations then specially commanded by Christ Himself.

Having thus considered the proper subjects for the ordinance of Baptism, we proceed to examine,

V. The nature of the efficacy which it is scriptural to ascribe to this ordinance.

The language of the apostles upon this subject is mingled with allusions to another subject, which, for the sake of clearness, demands attention first, and distinctly. In speaking of the spiritual changes which a sinner undergoes in becoming truly a child of God, the apostles largely refer to the history of the actual physical changes which the body of Christ underwent.

The body of Jesus was literally dead; and this is used as an image of the spiritual "death unto sin" which is experienced by the awakened soul.

The body of Jesus was literally buried; and this is used as an image of the spiritual burial or separation from this present evil world, which is experienced by the penitent soul.

The body of Jesus was literally raised from the dead, and taken up to heaven; and this is used as an image of the spiritual resurrection and ascension to newness of life, which is experienced by the regenerated soul.