law; some indeed suppose that circumcision was a type of water baptism. In this however, there must appear an obvious inconsistency: for there is no kind of analogy between baptism and circumcision; and water baptism itself, was but a type of the baptism of the Holy Ghost. This appears evident from John's own testimony: "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance; but he "that cometh after me, is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not "worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and "with fire.' "" Therefore, to say that circumcision was a type of baptism, is nothing less than calling it a type of a type, which is an absurdity.

The circumcision of the male in the flesh of his foreskin, was a significant mark of mortification in that particular member of the flesh in which is found the seat of its carnal pleasures. This seal of the typical covenant made with Abraham, was the most lively figure ever given to man, of the mortification of the very source of iniquity, by the spiritual work of Christ, and of the complete destruction of that carnal pleasure received from that source, in the act of sexual coition.

As circumcision was the seal of the covenant of promise to Abraham and his posterity, under the law; and as none were considered as God's covenant people without this seal, whatever degree of conformity they might observe in other respects; so it was a very plain manifestation that the seal of the covenant in Christ, was to consist in the cutting off, and total rejection of fleshly lust, by a life of self-denial and the cross. This is the very foundation of the true cross of Christ, and the separating line between "the children of this world," who "marry and are given in marriage," and “the children of the resurrection," who "neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like unto the angels;" because they live a spiritual life. And without this seal, this distinguishing mark of the cross of Christ, no soul can be in the real covenant of Christ, revealed in this day, whatever profession he may make, or whatever duties he may perform, in other respects.

This figure is so obvious and striking, that it seems as tho none could mistake it, excepting those who are blinded by an obstinate determination to maintain the carnal life of the flesh, at all events. There is nothing else to which circumcision, as a type, can bear any consistent analogy "By the law is the knowledge of sin. But as the law was only figurative of spiritual things, and not the real substance; therefore if its types do not bear a plain resemblance to their antitypes, then it is in vain to seek by them to find the knowledge of sin. Man has been too long imposed upon by false systems and imaginary theories, which have no foundation in truth, nor any consistency in themselves. Certainly a figure of so much importance as circumcision evidently was, under the law,

ought to be well considered by those who profess to be under the light of the gospel; lest, unhappily, they lose both the knowledge and the benefit of the most important principles of the gospel.

Let those who consider water-baptism to be the antitype of circumcision, (for if it was substituted under the gospel in lieu of circumcision, it must be the antitype,) consider also, that upon this principle, the antitype is not so mortifying to the flesh, nor so deep and lasting as the type. This clearly involves the absurdity of making the shadow of a substance more substantial than the substance itself. What figure could have been formed, under the law, to represent more plainly the cutting off and rejection of the carnal works of the flesh, under the gospel, than outward circumcision, or cutting off the foreskin of the flesh? This not only wounded the flesh in such a manner that the mark remained visible ever after; but it took blood, which is the life of the flesh, from that very member in which is found the seat and center of all the pleasures of lust.

The object of the covenant with Abraham, which was established and confirmed by this seal, was to show that under the gospel dispensation, the everlasting seal of the spiritual covenant, which was to distinguish Christ's chosen people from all others, must be that cross which destroys the life of fleshly lust. "For he is not 66 a Jew which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision "which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew which is one in66 wardly and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and "not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."* This then is the true seal which hath praise of God, but not of men: for nothing is so opposite to the natural inclinations of fallen man as this seal, which is, in very deed, the cross against the lust of the flesh.

It may perhaps be objected that circumcision, when compared with this cross, is not a perfect figure; because males only were the subjects of circumcision; and therefore it could not properly typify that cross, which seems to be enjoined on females as well as males. True indeed, males only were the subjects of circumcision; but if sexual coition ceases in the male, it must cease in the female of course.

But there was another legal ceremony respecting women, which was sufficient to balance the cross of circumcision in the male, and which was not only a confirmation of the impure nature of the works of generation, but an evident token that these works were to be excluded from the church of Christ, which is the spiritual sanctuary of God. A woman who brought forth a male child, was counted unclean, under the law, seven days; and on the eighth day the child was to be circumcised. And even then, the

* Rom, ii. 28, 29.

woman was not allowed to come into the sanctuary, nor touch any holy thing, for the space of forty days from the birth of her child. After the birth of a female child, the time of her uncleanness and separation from the sanctuary was doubled, extending even to eighty days. After this she was required to bring a sin-offering and a burnt-offering to the priest, at the door of the tabernacle, where they were to be offered, before she could be admitted into the sanctuary with those who were accounted clean.*

Therefore, as circumcision was a figurative ceremony of purification to the male; so likewise these legal injunctions were figurative ceremonies of purification to the female; and both were designed to typify that state of purity and separation from all the works of generation which were to be required of the church of Christ under the gospel dispensation. But why was the time of the woman's separation from the sanctuary doubled after she had borne a female child This was to show that the female could not find her lot and order in the spiritual creation of God, until the second gospel dispensation, or second appearing of Christ, when the Spirit of Christ, manifested in a woman, should redeem the female character, and bring her into her proper lot and order in the new creation.†

Again: The law enjoined ordinances respecting sexual coiffon, which applied to both male and female, and which clearly pointed `out the sinfulness of that nature in the sight of a pure and holy God. Every act of that kind excluded the parties from the camp, and from the society of those who were accounted clean; they could by no means be admitted into the sanctuary, nor come before the Lord at any time, nor partake of any holy thing, without being first ceremonially cleansed and purified from those works. When Moses was ordered to sanctify the people, and prepare them to appear before the Lord at Mount Sinai, he commanded them saying, "Be ready against the third day: come not at your wives." If this was not an unholy act, why did Moses give this charge?

As the ceremonies of the law were but types and figures of things to come, they must have their antitypes, and be fulfilled in substance under the gospel. If therefore these works of the flesh were not, in their very nature, unclean, and if they were not finally * See Lev chap. xii

†The man found his lot and order in the first appearing of Christ, who appeared in the male, (in the person of Jesus,) which was the first gospel dispensation, or antitype of the first temple. But the second gospel dispensation, which was prefigured by the second temple, was first manifested in the female, and was called the second appearing of Christ, in which the woman, as well as the man, is restored to her preper lot and order in the new creation. || Exod. xix. 15.

* See Lev. xv. 18.

to be excluded from the spiritual sanctuary of God, then we would ask why they were declared unclean under the law, and excluded from the sanctuary of Israel, which was but a type of the true gospel sanctuary? Was the law more pure than the gospel? or was uncleanness under the law to be counted cleanness under the gospel? Was the type more pure and holy than its antitype? or in other words, can we rationally suppose that the temporal and typical sanctuary of Israel was more pure and holy than that sanctuary of holiness which is established in the church of Christ, as a spiritual sanctuary? And if those works of the flesh which were so pointedly marked out under the law, were not sinful, why did the law require a sin-offering? Will God require a sacrifice for sin, where there is no sin? Certainly not.

These injunctions and restrictions were evident tokens of the unclean nature of those acts, and plainly typified the purity which God would require of souls under the dispensation of the gospel. In nothing short of this can the types and shadows of the law be answered with any degree of consistency. In nothing short of this can the righteousness of the law be manifested in us, "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."

Hence it is evident that circumcision and other legal ceremonies clearly pointed to a life of self-denial and the cross of Christ, by which souls receive the washing of the regeneration, and the purifying fire of the gospel, which is the real baptism of the Holy Ghost; and that nothing short of this can entitle any soul to the privilege of entering into the camp of the saints, and worshipping God in the spiritual sanctuary, of which the camp of Israel and the sanctuary of Jacob were but types and figures.

CHAPTER V.

few remarks on the nature and typical design of the Jewish wars, showing that the law could not decide the future state of the soul.

THE advocates of war who make a profession of christianity, often urge the example of the Jewish wars, directed by Divine authority, as an argument in justification of the lawfulness of war under the dispensation of the gospel. And tho some of them endeavor to enforce this argument upon the principle that the nature of God is unchangeable, and that the nature of man is essentially the same in all ages; yet the argument would doubtless appear very inconsistent, even in their own view, did they but consider the most essential difference between the law and the gospel, and the nature, tendency and design of God's work, as it respects the final lot of man. The same argument would apply, with equal force, to all the ceremonies of the law, and indeed to every thing

which God ever commanded or authorized among men, whatever might be the occasion or circumstances which required it.

When God deals with mankind, he always deals with them according to their situation and circumstances, and in a manner best calculated to answer his own Divine purposes, and at the same time, to give them a fair opportunity of proving themselves by their works. The work of God is an increasing work, and has always been attended with an increasing degree of light to man, from one dispensation to another, ever since the fall. And as the light of God has increased among mankind; so righteousness has increased in those who were obedient to that light. In the same proportion also, has wickedness increased in those who were disobedient.

But the light of God to man, from the fall to the coming of Christ, was very limited. Even under the law, which was given to regulate man in his natural and fallen state, and which was but a shadow of things to come, he could have, at most, but an imperfect sense of a future state, compared with what was revealed after the coming of Christ. For this reason, the promises and blessings to the faithful and obedient, and the threatenings and curses upon the wicked and disobedient, were mostly of a temporal nature.

By the law was the knowledge of sin; and the work of the law, as it respected the then existing state of the Israelites, was to search cut and condemn the transgressions committed under it: hence the severity of its penalties. The law was a law of justice, and, in most cases, enjoined immediate execution upon the offender. It required strict and ample justice between man and man, and between God and man. It required "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." It inflicted the penalty of death by stoning and burning for specific transgressions, such as profaning the sabbath, blaspheming the name of the Lord, rebellion against parents, adultery, fornication and the like.

The law also enjoined the total destruction of enemies, with all their possessions, wives and children. In many cases, it gave no quarter in battle; but death and destruction was the decided portion of enemies, without pity or compassion. These severities, considered in a natural view, at the present day, would appear shocking to humanity. Yet they were executed by Divine authority, and when viewed in their true light, they appear not only perfectly consistent with all the displays of Divine Justice, but they are also full of solemn instruction and warning.

The law was figurative of a future state of things which were to take place under the gospel; and therefore it is not improperly called, "a law of types and shadows." But its most mysterious injunctions had a more particular reference to the last gospel dispensation, which was to accomplish a final settlement with all souls, in which the mystery of God was to be finished, and every

Q