scendants, Dr. Gill says, "The only true circumcision is "internal, spiritual, and in the heart." And he expressly says that the "circumcision of the flesh was typical of "this," and again, that it was "an emblem of spiritual "circumcision, or circumcision of the heart."(f) Now it will not do to answer this, by begging our worthy and eminent Baptist writer to have some respect to his readers, and to the reputation of his own intellect.

2. BAPTISM is a sign and means of sanctification. Here the primitive Anabaptists of Germany do not agree with me as they did in a former case: but they were consistent enough to reject the scriptures also from being a means of grace. Their doctrine, according to STAPFER, was as follows viz. "And if perseverance depend 66 upon man, nor is there need of divine assistance, "hence neither is there need of signs and seals of seal"ing grace ;(b) whence they hold that the sacraments

66

are only signs of our confession. And since they who "have attained the highest degree of perfection and "sanctity, no longer stand in need of the means of 66 grace, hence they do not highly esteem the use of the "sacred scripture." In opposition to this erroneous doctrine my Opponent quotes Peter, who says, "Bap"tism does also now save us, by the resurrection of "Jesus Christ from the dead."(c) To this he adds several appropriate authorities, to some of which I have already alluded. By this I do not mean to agree with

f) See Gill on Gen. xvii. 11. Rom. iv. 11. iii, 1. ii. 29.

(b) Hinc nec gratiæ obsignantis signis et sigillis opus est. Stapfer's Institutions. Chap. 18. Sect. 30. 31.

(c) 1 Pet. iii. 21.

my Opponent, in considering baptism more important than faith. He might as well say that sacrifice was better than obedience. This error of his, and the posite one of his forefathers, both alike flow from ignorance of true religion.

op

POINT II.

The substitution of the name of one FORM for the other, proves that their SUBSTANCE is the same.

On this subject I would solicit your attention to two verses, one of which has very often passed under your review. "And he received the sign of circumci❝sion, a seal of the righteousness of the faith, which he "had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the "father of all them that believe, though they be not cir"cumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto "them also and the father of circumcision to them who "are not of the circumcision only, but also walk in the 66 steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he "had being yet uncircumcised."(d) By the consent of all parties, this passage represents Abraham as the father of God's people, whether they be Jews or Gentiles. Here the Jews are not represented as believers and the Gentiles as unbelievers; both have the same faith, because the faith of the church has undergone no change: but the Jews are represented as circumcised, and the Gentiles as uncircumcised, altho' Abraham is the Father of circumcision to both; because, though both have, substantially,

(d) Rom. iv. 11. 12.

the same seal, they have not the same form of the seal. As the use of the abstract for the concrete is a common Hebraism, we are here to understand " the father of the circumcision" to mean "the father of the circumcised." This will preserve the antithetical relation of the two aspects in which Abraham's character is here presented. One is, that he was the father of the uncircumcised believers; another is, that he was the father of the circumcised. The sense of one will illustrate the other. Dr. Gill says that the first means that he was the father "of them as they were believers," whether they were Jews or Gentiles. The meaning of the second, then, must be that he is the father of the circumcision as they were circumcised, whether Jews or Gentiles. This is the plain meaning of the passage. The Gentile church is evidently represented as circumcised in one sense, and as uncircumcised in another sense. The two cannot be reconciled on any other principle, than that the substance of circumcision remains under the form of baptism after the ancient form of the seal is abolished.

2. Paul says, "Beware of dogs, beware of evil work66 ers, beware of the concision: for we are the circum"cision, which worship God in the Spirit, and rejoice "in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.(e) In this passage, as in the former, the noun is used for a participle; it means "we are the circumcised." Why are Christians said to be circumcised? It must be, because they have received outward, or inward circumcision, or both. But my Opponent denies that it ever

Hh

(e) Phill. iii. 2. 3.

relates to inward circumcision. He says, "Was it the "sign of the circumcision of the heart of one of Abra"braham's descendants? No, not one." Then, of course, the word here must mean external circumcision. But it cannot mean that form of it which the Jews practised; for that is here called, by way of contempt, concision, in allusion to the savage and cruel manner in which the heathen cut their flesh: it must, therefore, mean some Christian ordinance which, while it does not wound the flesh, is substantially the same with Jewish circumcision, in being a seal of initiation, and a sign of justification and sanctification. This ordinance we have shewn to be Christian Baptism. To this the text evidently alludes; while it certainly does not exclude, but primarily intends that spiritual circumcision, the existence of which my Opponent is unwilling to admit.

3. "Also ye are circumcised with the circumcision "made without hands, in putting off the body of the "sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried "with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with "him, through the faith of the operation of God, who "hath raised him from the dead." Here also we find circumcision in the Christian church. Yet it was not Jewish circumcision, nor that Judaizing circumcision which the Ebionites practised; but it is said to be "the circumcision of Christ," or Christian circumcision. Now if my Opponent be correct in denying that there is any inward circumcision, and if he be correct in saying that water-baptism is here intended, then we are

(f) Col. ii. 11. 12.

taught by this passage, that there is an external circumcision, which is not after the Jewish, but the Christian form; and that this Christian form of circumcision is,

66

being buried with him in baptism," as it is correctly translated. The Greek of Griesbach, and the Latin of Castallio have only a comma at the close of the eleventh verse. This punctuation only makes a plain truth a little more obvious, that is, that baptism is the Christian circumcision. It is worthy of remark, that this very text was so explained, in a work ascribed to Justin Martyr, who lived very near the time in which Paul wrote it. "The question there, is, Why, if circumcision "were a good thing, we do not use it as the Jews did? "The answer is, We are circumcised by Baptism with "Christ's circumcision, &c. And he brings this text "for his proof."(g) In allusion to the same text, both Basil and Chrysostom say that Baptism is the "circumcision made without hands." And Austin declares it one of the errors of the Pelagians, to "say that in "the baptism of infants, there is no putting off the flesh, "that is, no circumcision made without hands."(h)

But if, in opposition to my Opponent, you should understand this passage to relate to spiritual circumcision and baptism, as I do, it makes no difference in the conclusion; for the identity of the thing signified is an evident deduction from the substantial identity of the outward signs. When the Apostle tells us that the spiritual "putting off the body of

(g) Wall's History of Baptism. Chap. 2, Sect. 2. From him quoted by the Editor of Calmet's Dictionary, in his First series of Facts and Evidences on the subject of Baptism.

(h) Wall's History. Chap. 14. Sect. 1. 2. Chap. 12. Sect. 5.