APPENDIX.

A.

ON CIRCUMCISION CONSIDERED AS A SACRAMENT.

Page 56, line 7. Nor does it appear that circumcision, &c.] Whether circumcision is to be considered as a sacrament or not, depends on the manner in which the latter term is defined. By the word sacrament, the author means 66 an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace," (see Catechism of the Church of England,) and he has been unable to find any passage in the Old Testament in which circumcision is spoken of as, in this sense, a means of grace. Indeed the facts appear to warrant the more general statement, that the grace of the Holy Spirit formed no part of the expressed provisions of the Mosaic covenant. Circumcision was a symbolical ordinance, perpetually reminding the Jew of what he ought to be, but beyond this its efficacy does not seem to have extended. Mr. Fairbairn, in his valuable work on Typology, vol. i. p. 327, remarks, in reference to this subject, that "to be bound to do righteously without being entitled to look for grace corresponding, is simply to be placed under an intolerable yoke;" but is that not exactly the description which the Apostles give of the elder covenant? See Acts xv. 10. Heb. ii. 15. Gal. iv. 24. That spiritual aids were

vouchsafed under the Law we must believe; but no inconsiderable part of the "bondage" to which the pious Jew was subject, and which led him to long for a Saviour, must have consisted in the felt incongruity between the demands of the moral law, and the absence of a promise of sanctifying grace as part of the covenant which defined his privileges. The statement of Mr. Faber, (Prim. Reg. p. 94.) "that Circumcision, like Baptism, was the outward sign of the inward grace of regeneration," if it is to be understood of a covenanted connexion between circumcision and regeneration, is, surely, unguarded. It is true that circumcision was the symbol of inward purity, and, in that sense, a sign thereof; but such language as Mr. Faber uses is calculated to mislead, and is certainly not warranted by either the Old or the New Testament Scriptures. "He is not a Jew which is one outwardly, neither is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew which is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, &c." (Rom. ii. 28, 29.); such a passage as this by no means warrants the conclusions which Mr. Faber draws from it. It states that a true descendant of Abraham was an inheritor of Abraham's faith and piety, as well as connected with him by blood; but nothing respecting any covenanted connexion between the circumcision of the flesh and that of the heart.

In a looser sense indeed Circumcision may be considered as a sacrament. For Baptism too is a symbolical ordinance, perpetually reminding the Christian what his vocation is. Circumcision, moreover, was to the Jewish infant a seal, or formal confirmation, of the promises of God, first made to the Patriarch Abraham, and then to his seed; just as Baptism now seals to us the higher promises of the Evangelical covenant. It is thus that one of our Homilies speaks of it: "And so was Circumcision a

sacrament, which preached unto the outward senses the inward cutting away of the foreskin of the heart, and sealed and made sure in the hearts of the circumcised, the promise of God touching the promised seed that they looked for." Homily on Common Prayer and Sacraments. The present writer, however, takes this occasion of acknowledging an alteration of view as regards the place which circumcision held in the ancient economy, and its consequent relation to baptism under the New. In his work on the Church (Appendix) the view was put forward, that circumcision was not so much the rite of admission to the Jewish covenant, as a means of continuance in it; a "condition subsequent," the neglect of which entailed the forfeiture of blessings previously enjoyed. He was misled by insisting too strongly on the language of the Law, which prescribes that the uncircumcised "soul shall be cut off from his people" (Gen. xvii. 14.), which seemed to imply, that the offender was already by his birth in possession of privileges of which for his contumacy he was to be deprived. The complete view seems to be this:-the (natural) birth of the Jew, which was the real ground of his privileges, answers to the new birth of the Christian in its inner or essential aspect; while circumcision, the rite by which the Jewish infant became a publicly acknowledged member of the Theocracy, corresponds to baptism, or the new birth in its external aspect, to which sacrament the same function, of visibly incorporating in the Church, now belongs. The argument then for infant baptism from circumcision holds good; though, no doubt, it is singular that, with the exception of one passage of doubtful importa, (Col. ii. 11, 12.) no formal parallel

It is strange that the Commentators who affirm that in this passage a parallel is drawn between circumcision and baptism, as visible ordinances,

should in the New Testament be found drawn between the two ordinances. But this may be because the analogy was so obvious as not to need mention. And perhaps the pædobaptist will more safely rest his cause, as far as Scripture is concerned, on general analogies of this kind than on texts more or less ambiguous, or on the scholastic notion of placing no bar (Is original sin no bar?). Such analogies are, 1. That of circumcision just mentioned; or rather circumcision in conjunction with, 2. The analogy between the Theocracy as a training school, and local Christian Churches which, to some extent, bear the same character. As circumcision marked the entrance of the Jewish infant on his school of training, so does baptism mark the entrance of the Christian infant on that course of discipline and instruction which, in the Church's expectation, will issue in a saving change of heart. 3. The circumstance, that in the Apostolic administration of baptism to adults, the sacrament was not deferred until visible signs of regeneration had been exhibited, but was administered at once, on an expression of desire for it. See the various instances in the Acts of the Apostles. (It may be questioned, in connexion with this head, whether the modern practice in missions of postponing baptism till after a lengthened period of probation and instruction is according to the Apostolic precedent.) 4. The spirit of such passages as Mark x. 13-16. 1 Cor. vii. 14.

should not have perceived the difficulty arising from the fact, that the circumcision of which St. Paul speaks is axeipomoiros, "made without hands," i. e. an inward, invisible, circumcision; in other words, sanctification by the Holy Spirit. Now between this and outward baptism, baptism administered “by hands,” there can be no accurate comparison. To make the parallel a just one, we should be compelled to understand συνταφέντες αὐτῷ ἐν τῷ βαπτίσματι (v. 12.) of the inward baptism of the Holy Ghost; which certainly is not St. Paul's meaning.

curate.

B.

ON THE IDEA OF CHRISTIAN ELECTION.

Page 70, line 15. The Jewish election, and calling, and adoption, &c.] "To what were they" (the Israelites) "chosen by their Almighty Ruler? Were they elected absolutely and infallibly to enter the promised land, and to triumph over their enemies, and to live in security, wealth, and enjoyment? Manifestly not. They were elected to the privilege of having these blessings placed within their reach, on condition of their obeying the law which God had given them." Whately, Essay on Election. This statement, surely, is not quite acThe original promise to Abraham was absolute, not conditional; "Unto thy seed will I give this land:" Gen. xii. 7. (compare xiii. 15; xvii. 8.): the promise was not that the land should be offered to the Israelites, but that they should inherit it. And accordingly they did eventually enter into Canaan. No delay in the fulfilment of the promise, no reluctance of the people to pursue their high destiny, sufficed to frustrate the purpose of God. Abraham's seed occupied the promised land. Had it been merely the "offer" to which they were elected, they never, as far as we can judge from their manner of spirit, would have fulfilled the Divine intention. The cutting off of a generation in the wilderness for disobedience cannot be urged as a proof that the promise was conditional; it was simply a delaying of the fulfilment: but a delay of more than 400 years had already interposed, and many generations of Abraham's descendants had never enjoyed the blessings of Canaan: yet this did not affect the quality of the promise, which remained an absolute one, though for the present the effect was suspended.