|
|
|
|
The Covenant of
Circumcision Part I "It is written that Abraham had two sons, the one by a
bond-maid, the other by a free woman. . . Which things are an allegory; for
these are the two Covenants. . . Nevertheless, what saith the Scripture? Cast
out the bond-woman and her son: for the son of the bond-woman shall not be
heir with the son of the free woman. So then, brethren, we are not children
of the bond-woman, but of the free." Gal. iv. 22,24,30,31. WHEN our blessed Lord was about to
ascend to heaven, he gave his apostles the great charter on which His Church,
considered as an external organization, is founded. He commanded them to
disciple all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Ghost; assuring them that he that believeth and is
baptized shall be saved, while he that believeth not shall be damned. With
this charter before us, which, by its terms, is to continue "to the end
of the world," it would seem incredible that there should be any dispute
among Christians on the question, To whom is baptism to be administered? But
the great majority of those who bear the Christian name, not content with
this plain law, have gone back of it almost two thousand years, to the
Covenant of Circumcision made with Abraham, which, they say, is the law of
Christian baptism. So that, before the positive superstructure of Christian
baptism can be reared on the basis of the Commission, it becomes necessary to
go through a laborious negative process, in clearing away the rubbish of
Jewish ideas, which from the days of Cyprian of Carthage, has been
accumulating about this simple and beautiful Christian rite. This, with God's
help, we shall do in the following pages. The positions which I design to
bring to the test of God's word are briefly the following: The Covenant of
Circumcision is the Covenant of Grace; the Church of God in the Old Testament
is identical with the Church of Christ in the New. The Covenant of
Circumcision therefore, in all its essential particulars, remains still in
force and will to the end of time, its external rite, which they who maintain
these positions call the seal of it, being exchanged for baptism, which they
say is now the seal of it. Hence, as the rite of circumcision was
administered to infants, the rite of baptism is also to be administered to
infants. Hence also, as infant membership was a well established and
essential feature in the Jewish Church, it is an equally essential feature of
the Christian Church. To ascertain whether these positions
are tenable, I propose to make a careful examination of the Covenant of
Circumcision-to exhibit as concisely as possible, and yet with all needful
minuteness, all the light which the Scriptures cast upon it. The examination
will include its nature; the nature of the blessings promised in it; the
nature of its rite; the uses of its rite; and the proof that the covenant and
the rite are totally abrogated, neither having any existence, either by
itself or by a substitute. THE COVENANT OF CIRCUMCISION MADE
WITH ABRAHAM AND HIS NATURAL SEED THE Covenant of Circumcision is given
at length in the seventeenth chapter of Genesis. If a fair interpretation of
language can establish any point, the covenant of circumcision was made with
Abraham and his natural seed only. All the expressions in vs. 2-6, in which
God promises him a numerous posterity, prove that he is speaking of a natural
posterity. "I will multiply thee exceedingly." "I will make
thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall
come out of thee." The declaration of God is that he will make a
covenant with Abraham, including also that promised posterity. "I will
establish my covenant with thee and thy seed after thee in their
GENERATIONS." This language certainly indicates natural seed. If it be
said that the language, by a double sense, (a scheme of interpretation now
generally admitted to be entirely arbitrary and fanciful) includes both
Abraham's natural posterity and his children by faith, still that will not
help the case of infant baptism. Unconscious infants are children by faith of
nobody. But our brethren, in order to get any plausible support of infant
baptism here, are obliged to interpret these expressions, not merely in a
double, but in a quadruple sense. They first find under the word
"seed" in this covenant the two senses, natural seed, and children
of faith. Then they take the second of those senses and subdivide that into
another double sense, viz.believers and their natural seed. That I may be
clearly understood, I will represent this to the eye. In Gen. xvii., A double
sense in interpreting prophecy has been very popular, but that class of
expositors is nearly or quite extinct. Swedenborgians interpret the entire
Scriptures, if I am not mistaken, by a triple or threefold sense; but of a
quadruple sense, or more properly speaking a compound double sense, I believe
we have no example except in the Pedobaptist interpretation of the covenant
of circumcision. If we interpret this covenant according to the obvious
import of the language, as well as according to the principle on which Paul
explains the other promises made to Abraham, all notions of a double sense,
whether simple or compound, will be excluded. In Gal. iii. 16, Paul, quoting
the great new covenant promise from Gen. xxii. 18, expressly affirms that the
word “seed “ in that promise is used but a single sense. I quote from
Macknight's translation. "He doth not say, And in seeds, as concerning
many, but as concerning one person, and in thy seed, who is Christ." So
also in this covenant, if the natural seed are mentioned, the spiritual are
not; and if the spiritual are, the natural are not. The verses quoted from
the later part of Gen. xvii. render it still more clear, that Abraham's
natural posterity alone are mentioned in this covenant. In the 16th verse it
is declared that Sarah will have a son; that she shall be a mother of
nations, and kings shall be of her; so that whoever the seed were, that were
promised to Abraham in this covenant, they were to be descended from Sarah.
But Abraham's spiritual seed are descended, not by natural generation, from
Sarah, but by a spiritual birth from Christ. "If ye be Christ's, then
are ye Abraham's seed." Again, in vs. 19 and 21, the promise is repeated
in relation to the birth of Isaac, and Abraham is expressly told that the
seed, with whom God's covenant is established, is his natural posterity as
descended from Isaac. THE COVENANT OF CIRCUMCISION A
CONDITIONAL, OR LEGAL COVENANT THE Covenant of Circumcision so far
from being the Covenant of Grace, is, as I shall now show, both in its form
and spirit, conditional, which is the very essence of legality. God, in the
first place, declares what blessings he will bestow upon Abraham's posterity,
and then states the condition upon which he will bestow them, That condition
is, that they observe faithfully the law of circumcision. The language is, If
you keep this covenant, (which in respect to its prescribed rite was a law)
you shall receive these blessings; otherwise you shall not receive them, but
shall be cut off from your people. Other conditions were afterwards added, as
will be shown in the proper place. Now this is precisely the legal spirit-the
spirit of the old covenant, in opposition to the spirit of faith, the spirit
of the new-as Paul describes it in Gal. iii 11,12: "The just shall live
by faith. And the law is not of faith; but the man that doeth them shall live
in them." The legal spirit is uniformly
described by Paul, as a spirit of bondage. And in remonstrating with the
Galatians, against the observance of circumcision, (Gal. iv. 1-3) he exhorts
them not to be entangled again with the yoke of bondage. So Peter in Acts xv.
10, calls circumcision "a yoke, which neither our fathers, nor we, were
able to bear." The covenant of circumcision is thus, in its very nature
and essence, opposed to the covenant of grace, as any one may see by
comparing the two together. "Behold the days come, saith the Lord, when
I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah.
Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when
I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, because they
continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For
this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those
days, saith the Lord: I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in
their hearts; and I will be to them a God and they shall be to me a people.
And they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother,
saying, Know the, Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the
greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and
their iniquities will I remember no more." Heb. viii. 8-12. Here are no
conditions. It is not IF. It is a positive, unconditional promise; "I
will put my laws into their minds-I will be to them a God, and they shall be
to me a people." If it be said that New Covenant blessings are conditional,
their bestowment depending on the exercise of repentance and faith, I answer,
repentance and faith are not conditions of the bestowment of these blessings,
in the mind of God. If there were any conditions in the mind of God, they
would have been stated in the covenant itself, as they were in the old
covenant. In that covenant there were conditions, and that is the reason why
it was abrogated. Salvation could never be certain to men, so long as it
depended on exercises or works to be performed by them as conditions, because
it could never be certain that men would perform those conditions. Christ is,
accordingly, the Mediator of a better covenant, established upon better
promises, (Heb. viii. 6) i. e. promises without conditions. Salvation is,
therefore, just as certain to all who are interested in the new covenant, as
the oath and promise of God can make it. And this is the precise distinction
between the Old and New covenant-whatever is conditional in its very terms
pertains to the Old Covenant, or the Law; whatever is unconditional in its
terms, pertains to the New Covenant, or the Gospel. If it be asked, In what sense then
are repentance and faith conditions of salvation I answer, they are conditions
of the CONSCIOUS RECEPTION by us of the new covenant blessings, which stand
directly connected with their exercise. But they are not conditions of their
bestowment by God, because repentance and faith are included among the
blessings secured by the new covenant. When God puts his laws into the mind
and writes them in the heart then, and not till then, will repentance, faith,
and everything else which depends on a holy temper of heart, be in exercise.
But we can have no consciousness or evidence of an interest in this new
covenant, if we are not in the exercise of repentance, faith, and a holy
temper of heart. Hence repentance and faith are said to be, to us, conditions
of salvation. The covenant of grace was revealed to Abraham before the covenant
of circumcision was made with him, and is always confounded by Pedobaptist
writers with the covenant of circumcision. It is only by confounding together
totally distinct transactions in the history of Abraham, that they are able
to impart a degree of plausibility to their argument from the Abrahamic
covenant. And yet it is strange that any person of ordinary clearness of
sight, can fail to see that this scheme of interpretation makes confusion and
absurdity of Paul's Epistle to the Galatians. No man can interpret that
epistle on modern Pedobaptist principles, without representing Paul as
commending and exalting as the ground of the Christian's hope, what, in the
next breath he denounces as subversive of Christianity, and, an adherence to,
as falling from grace. The surest way to unravel this web of
fallacies, will be to go to this same Epistle to the Galatians, where we
shall find the distinction, between the covenant of circumcision and the
covenant of grace, clearly defined. The covenant of grace revealed to
Abraham, is referred to in Gal. iii. 8, "And the Scripture foreseeing
that God would justify the heathen by faith, preached the gospel before to
Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed." Now let it be
observed, God did not make this promise to Abraham when he made the covenant
of circumcision with him. It is quoted, not from Gen. xvii., but from Gen.
xii. 3 and was spoken to Abraham when he was called to go into Canaan. It is
further spoken of in Gal., iii. 15-17, which, as conveying with more accuracy
the sense of the original, I shall quote from Macknight's translation.
"Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; no one setteth aside, or
altereth a ratified covenant, though but of a man. Now to Abraham were the
promises spoken, and to his seed. He doth not say, And in seeds, as
concerning many, but as concerning one person, and in thy seed, who is
Christ." I add the following from his note on the passage. "'He
doth not say, And 'seeds,' so toi" spexmasi should be translated, the
preposition en being understood as is plain from the promise itself, Gen.
xxii. 18: 'And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.'
The promise to Abraham is that made, Gen. xii. 3 'In thee shall all the
families of the earth be blessed.' The promise to his seed is that recorded,
Gen. xxii. 18. See Gal. iii. 19. Now since by the oath which God sware to
Abraham, after he had laid Isaac upon the altar, both promises were ratified,
the Apostle reasons justly when he says both must be fulfilled." To these
remarks we may add that since these two promises were so related to each
other as to be virtually one and identical Paul reasons upon them as one and
in the subsequent verses speaks of them jointly, in the singular number, as
"the covenant," and "the promise." But nothing is said
here of the covenant of circumcision. This language cannot be found in Gen.
xvii. it can have no connection with the covenant of circumcision, because in
that the promises are made, as has been shown, to the natural posterity of
Abraham, or as Paul expresses it here, "to the seeds, as spoken
concerning many," while here they are made to Him who is pre-eminently
the SEED, that is Christ. That these promises, in Gen. xii. 3, and xxii. 18,
referred to in Gal. iii. 8, 14-17, have no connection with the covenant of
circumcision, appears still clearer, if possible, from the 17th verse, which
I will also quote from Macknight's translation: "Wherefore this I affirm
that the covenant which was afore ratified by God concerning Christ, the law,
which was made four hundred and thirty years after, cannot annul, so as to
abolish the promise." That it might be perfectly understood that there
is no reference here to the covenant of circumcision, the Apostle is careful
to tell us precisely when this covenant was made-430 years before the giving
of the law. It is agreed on all hands that this period of 430 years carries
us back to the time when God called Abraham out of Ur of the Chaldees, when
he made the promise in Gen. xii. 3 identified by the Apostle with the one
recorded in Gen. xxii. 18. The chronology may be stated thus: Abraham was 75
years old when this promise was made to him; Gen. xii. 4. He was 100 years
old when Isaac was born; xxi. 5. Isaac was 60 years old when Jacob was, born;
xxv. 26. Jacob was 130 years old when he went down into Egypt; xlvii. 9. We
have then From the Call of Abraham to the birth of Isaac, 25 years From the
birth of Isaac to the birth of Jacob, 60 years From the birth of Jacob to the
going down to Egypt, 130 years Total sojourn in Canaan, 215 years According
to Ex. xii. 40, the entire sojourn in Canaan and Egypt was 430 years.
Subtracting from the entire sojourn, the 215 years sojourn in Canaan and we
have 215 years for the sojourn in Egypt. Adding these two together, we have
430 years from the Call of Abraham to the giving of the law. The covenant,
therefore, here spoken of, must have been revealed to Abraham when be was 75
years old. But the Covenant of circumcision was made when Abraham was 99
years old; (Gen. xvii. 1) 24 years later, i. e. 406 years before the law,
instead of 430. Paul then has expressly affirmed that the covenant of
circumcision is not the covenant of grace by stating the precise time when
the covenant of grace was revealed to Abraham. But if he had not so carefully
distinguished them that must be an exceedingly careless reader of the Epistle
to the Galatians, who could suppose Paul guilty of so glaring an
inconsistency as the confounding of these two covenants would involve. Our
brethren wonder that we cannot believe that Paul speaks of the covenant of
circumcision as a preaching of the gospel to Abraham, (Gal. iii. 8)-as a
covenant confirmed of God in Christ which the law could not disannul, (v.
17)-and the privilege of administering circumcision, or a substitute to the
children of believers, as the blessing of Abraham come on the Gentiles, (v.
14)-and all that while he expostulates with the Galatians as foolish and
bewitched for listening to teachers who were setting forth this same law of
circumcision as a part of the gospel, (v. 1)-declaring that by being
circumcised they are entangling themselves in a yoke of bondage that Christ
would profit them nothing, that they would be debtors to do the whole law,
and fallen from grace! (chap. v. 1-4) And we, with equal sincerity, wonder
how they can believe all this. No one, I trust, will question that Paul
refers to the covenant of grace in Heb. viii. 8-12,-"Behold the days
come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of
Israel, and the house of Judah," &c. But if the covenant of
circumcision is the covenant of grace, the statement in Gen. xvii. must be
precisely equivalent to the statement in Heb. viii., and the blessings in the
covenant of grace, as stated in Heb. viii., are likewise secured to all who
were interested in the covenant of circumcision in Gen. xvii., And all who
belonged to the nation of Israel, who were duly circumcised, and observed the
Mosaic ritual, (which was purely an outward service) were interested in the
covenant of circumcision and were entitled to all the blessings secured by
it. The blessings secured by the covenant of grace are, "I will put my
laws into their minds and write them in their hearts-all shall know me from
the least to the greatest-I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and
their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. If then the covenant
of circumcision was the covenant of grace, these great saving blessings were
pledged and secured to every one who was a Jew outwardly, and who yielded
obedience to the law of Moses whatever might be his character in respect to
grace and faith, And if that covenant remains in force, and believers with
their seed enjoy its provisions, every child, duly baptized, has a certainty
of salvation as absolute and unqualified as the great promises of the New
Covenant, which are yea and amen in Christ Jesus, can give. Let me ask the careful attention of
my reader to what I have proved in this section from Gal iii.; for it is the
key to the Pedobaptist fallacy on this subject. The fallacy does not consist
in the claim that there is an Abrahamic covenant which is the Covenant of
Grace, for, the Apostle shows that there is, but in the assumption that the
covenant of Circumcision is that covenant, or any part of it. They assume
that all the covenants or promissory transactions, recorded in the history of
Abraham, are one covenant. Assume I say: we search their writings in vain for
any proof. On this, one point, where proof is most needed, it is utterly
wanting; and without it, their argument is a mere collocation of bewitching
Jewish fancies. I have shown that Paul recognizes the
promises recorded in Gen. xii. 3, xxii. 18, as identical, as one covenant,
the covenant of grace, and the foundation of Abraham's faith, and of the
faith of all believers. But we search the New Testament in, vain, for any
such recognition of any promise recorded, in Gen. xvii. On the contrary I
have shown that the Covenant of Circumcision is in form and spirit legal-the
spirit of the old covenant. And not only does Paul maintain a distinction
between the covenant of circumcision and the other promises given to Abraham;
they are elsewhere distinguished in the New Testament. Stephen, in Acts vii.,
after stating in chronological order the Call of Abraham, and the transaction
recorded in Gen. xv., speaks of this as a distinct thing-"And he gave
him the covenant of circumcision." This point will be rendered still
more clear in the next chapter. THIS COVENANT OF CIRCUMCISION AN
ESSENTIAL PART OF THE MOSAIC DISPENSATION THE question now before us is,
whether the Covenant of Circumcision is the Covenant of Grace. I have shown
that it is in its form and spirit legal, hath and is distinguished in the New
Testament from the covenant of grace. I shall now show that it is an
essential part of the Mosaic ritual, and that it must consequently pertain to
the covenant of works, that is, the old covenant. The church [assembly] of
the old covenant is what Stephen in Acts vii. 38, calls the church [assembly]
in the wilderness: at Mount Sinai. Its foundation was laid in Abraham when
the covenant of circumcision was made; its organization was complete when its
ritual and service were fully appointed at Mount Sinai. The covenant of
circumcision is, therefore, the old covenant. It must be either the old or
the new; for, let it be particularly observed, while the Apostle frequently
uses the word covenant in the plural number, he never specifies more than
two. "Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the
law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons; the one by a bond-maid, the
other by a free woman. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two
covenants; the one from Mount Sinai which gendereth to bondage, which is
Hagar. For this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and answereth to Jerusalem
which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is
above, is free which is the mother of us all. Nevertheless what saith the
Scripture? 'Cast out the bondwoman and her son; for the son of the bondwoman
shall not be heir with the son of the free woman.' So then, brethren, we are
not children of the bond-woman, but of the free. Stand fast, therefore, in
the liberty wherewith Christ made us free, and be not entangled again with
the yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul say unto YOU, that if ye be circumcised,
Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is
circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law."-Gal. iv. 21,22,
24-26, 30, 31; and v. 1-3. We have here circumcision designated as the yoke
of bondage, brought under the head of Hagar, the bond-woman and of Mount
Sinai. Consequently the covenant or law of circumcision is identified with
that which is from Mount Sinai. So far as I can understand their
positions, Pedobaptist writers themselves affirm the identity of the covenant
of circumcision with that of Mount Sinai. They always do this when they wish
to prove that the church is the same in all ages of the world, from Abraham
down. The writer of a work now before me, says, "It will not be disputed
by any, I trust, that the foundation of the Jewish church was the same
substantially without variation, from the first existence of the nation till
Christ's time, as when first laid in the family of Abraham. Upon this point I
never heard any controversy. It is true, at the time Moses led the Israelites
out of Egypt, the ordinance of the Passover was instituted but no alteration
was made, which affected the foundation of the church itself. Soon after
this, the ceremonial law was introduced, and the priesthood organized, but
all rested on the foundation of the covenant with Abraham. Their worship also
underwent changes as to the mode and form; but nothing was done, which made
the church different in its nature, from what it was when its foundation was
first laid." If the introduction of the Passover and the ceremonial law,
and the organization of the priesthood, were no alterations which made the
church different in its nature, or affected the foundation of the church, but
all rested still on the foundation of the covenant of circumcision, nothing
can be more certain than that the covenant of circumcision is identical with
that at Mount Sinai. It sometimes, however, better suits the views of
Pedobaptist writers to claim a distinction between the covenant of
circumcision, and that of Sinai. They then tell us, that circumcision can be
no part of the law of Moses, because it was instituted 400 years before the
law. And yet they tell us that it is a part of the Gospel, though it was
instituted almost 2000 years before the introduction of the Gospel
dispensation! Was not the Passover a part of the ceremonial law and yet it
was certainly instituted before the giving of the law. It is not difficult to
see that the covenant of circumcision and that made at Mount be identical
though they were chronologically 400 years apart. The old covenant church
[assembly] was to be a National Church [Assembly], involving a showy and
expensive ritual. It could not, therefore, be fully organized, until the
descendants of Abraham were increased to a nation, and were sufficiently
wealthy to support its rites of worship. And yet, if it had not an incipient
organization in the family of Abraham, so far as would suffice to keep his
descendants distinct from other nations there never would have been any
materials from which to organize it. The covenant was accordingly made with
Abraham, including his posterity; in which the only condition then required
of them, was the observance of the law of circumcision. But the fact that the
descendants of Abraham were, by these means, placed under a peculiar relation
to God, gave him the right to superadd other conditions whenever it should be
necessary in order fulfill the original design of the covenant. That necessity
appeared when the Israelites made their exodus from Egypt; and then, when the
original covenant was renewed, the other conditions were added, to which also
Israel gave their unanimous consent. This renewal of the covenant, and the
complete organization of the old covenant church [assembly], is called the
covenant from Mount Sinai; identical, as we see, with the covenant of
circumcision. I will now give some direct testimony, from the Scriptures, to
the proper identity of the covenant of circumcision with that from Mount
Sinai. In John vii. 22,23, Christ says,
"Moses therefore gave you circumcision, (not because it is of Moses, but
of the fathers)." How did Moses give them circumcision, if it were not
an essential part of the law which he gave? It was originally given to
Abraham and came down from him. If the observance of circumcision were not
founded on a covenant identical with the one from Sinai, and if it were not
of the same nature, and so incorporated into and enforced by the law of
Moses, Moses could with no sort of propriety, be said to have given them
circumcision. The next verse continues-"If a man on the Sabbath day
receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken,"
&c. A neglect to attend to circumcision clearly could not be an infraction
of the law of Moses, unless the law which required it were a part of the law
of Moses. Our Saviour, in affirming that the law of circumcision is a part of
the law of Moses, fully establishes the identity of the covenant on which it
was founded with that which was from Mount Sinai. Acts xv. 1,5. "And certain
brethren which came down from Judea taught the brethren and said, Except ye
be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved."-
"But there rose up certain of the Pharisee which believed saying, that
it was needful to circumcise them and to command them to keep the law of
Moses." Why is Moses referred to here, and circumcision joined with
keeping the law of Moses, if it is not a part of that law? It is easy to see
what was the conception of these disciples in regard to this point, and that
their conception was correct is clear, both from the words of Christ quoted
above, and from the fact that no apostle in that council questioned its
correctness. Acts xxi. 20,21. "Thou seest
brother how man thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all
zealous of the law. And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the
Jews which are among the Gentiles, to forsake Moses, saying that they ought
not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs."
According to James and the Elders of Jerusalem, teaching Jews not to
circumcise their children, was teaching them to forsake Moses. How could this
be, if circumcision was not a very essential part of the law of Moses? Rom. ii. 25. "For circumcision
verily profiteth, if thou keep the law." The argument of Paul evidently
is, that keeping a part of the law will avail nothing, unless the whole is
observed. (James ii. 10) If you are circumcised you keep a part of the law;
which could not be true, unless its observance were required by the law. Gal.
v. 2,3 "Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ
shall profit you nothing." Why? Because the whole Mosaic ritual was
abolished for Christ to set up his Church. Now as the Mosaic ritual and
Christianity were antagonistic, he who received any part of that ritual as of
binding force, or necessary to salvation must first forsake Christ, and
Christ would profit him nothing. But Paul affirms that this would be so, if one
were circumcised; which could not be, if circumcision were not a part of the
Mosaic ritual. "For I testify again to every man that is circumcised,
that be is a debtor to do the whole law." This plainly implies that
circumcision is a part of the law, of which it takes the residue to make the
whole. Nothing can be more conclusive to the point before us, than this whole
passage, extending from the 21st verse of the 4th chapter to the 4th verse of
the 5th chapter. Paul speaks of the two covenants, the one from Mount Sinai,
the yoke of bondage, typified by Hagar the bondwoman, the other Jerusalem
from above which is free, typified by Sarah and Isaac; and classes
circumcision under the former, or the old covenant. Indeed, through this
whole Epistle, circumcision is put as the representative and synonym of the
Mosaic law; an incontrovertible proof that Paul must have regarded it as a
very essential part of the law. I have now fulfilled the promise I made in
the first chapter, to examine the nature of the covenant of circumcision. I
have shown that it has no connection with the covenant of grace. I have shown
that it was a covenant made with Abraham and his natural posterity, and
therefore excluding any of his spiritual seed, who were not also of the
natural; that it is both in the terms of its original constitution, and in
the conceptions which Paul had of it, legal, and opposed in its spirit to the
covenant of grace; that it is the, old covenant and not the new; and that it
is an essential part of the Mosaic law, agreeing with it in spirit and
affirmed in Scripture to belong to it. I close this chapter with a remark of
explanation, on the old and new covenants. I have said that God revealed the
covenant of grace, that is, the new covenant, to Abraham, 24 years before he
made the covenant of circumcision. Perhaps my readers may infer from this
that I represent the new covenant as chronologically older than the old
covenant. But it should be borne in mind, that the declarations which God
made to Abraham involving a promise of the Messiah, (Gen. xii. 3; xxii. 18)
which Paul calls a covenant, (Gal. iii.17) are never called a covenant in the
Old Testament unless in the language of prophecy. God did not call them a
covenant when he gave them to Abraham. They appear in the history simply as a
promise, but a promise conceived and expressed entirely in the spirit of the
new covenant; for that is purely a covenant of promise. It could not properly
be called a covenant until its public ratification, which was made by the
death of Christ. Heb. ix. 16, 17. Jeremiah, (xxxi. 31, 34) in reference to
that complete and public ratification, calls it prophetically a covenant; and
Paul, after this event, speaks of it historically as a covenant. Peter, also,
does the same, in the first instance. Acts iii. 25. Now as the covenant of
grace could not be visibly established until the legal covenant had been
first set up and tried, had fulfilled its object, proved its insufficiency,
and been rejected; in reference to that, it is called the second or new
covenant; and that, in reference to this is called the first or old covenant.
THE PROMISES IN THE COVENANT OF
CIRCUMCISION THE promises in the covenant of
circumcision, which include the posterity of Abraham with him, are contained
in Gen. xvii. 7, 8, "And I will establish my covenant between me and
thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations, to be a God unto thee
and to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee and to thy seed after
thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an
everlasting possession and I will be their God." The promises here, it
will be seen, are comprised under two heads: 1. "I will be a God to thee
and to thy seed after thee." 2. "I will give unto thee, and to thy
seed after thee, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession."
And the only condition here required of Abraham's posterity, on which they
may expect these blessings, is, that, they observe the law of circumcision. Pedobaptist writers usually insist
that these promises, "I will be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after
thee"-"I will be their God," are spiritual promises. The
author before quoted (Rev. Dr. Porter) says, "When God promised Abraham
that he would be his God, all was promised that could be desired or infinite
grace could bestow. For a promise made to a man, that God will be his God, is
expressive of all that a creature can need, for time and eternity." If
this be the import of these words, let us see what must necessarily follow.
Let it be observed that the posterity of Abraham are as truly included in
this covenant as he was, and these promises are made equally to him and to
them. If there is any difference between Abraham and his posterity, it is in
their favor; for the promise is repeated to them, while it is made to him but
once. Let it be further observed, that the sole condition expressed in this
covenant as binding upon Abraham's posterity, is, that the law of
circumcision be obeyed; and especially, that no necessity of repentance,
faith or any other holy exercise is here expressed. According to the express
terms of this covenant, there is not a single exception to the reception of
all the blessings promised, by all contemplated in it, who observe its sole
condition -the law of circumcision. Let us see now what must necessarily
follow from the Pedobaptist interpretation of these promises. First, every
one of the posterity of Abraham, who was duly circumcised, had God for his
spiritual portion, and was entitled to all the blessings which flow from that
great fact, in time and through all eternity. Mocking Ishmael, and profane
Esau, set forth as examples of unbelief; Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and the other
graceless sons of Jacob; Korah, Dathan and Abiram; the multitudes who
perished in the wilderness; Achan; and so on down, all had God for their
spiritual portion in time and to all eternity, just as much as Abraham; for
the terms of this covenant secure it equally to him and to them. Secondly,
since (on this, scheme of interpretation) God covenants with Christians now
in the same manner and on the same terms as he did with Abraham, only
requiring them to baptize instead, of circumcise their children, it follows
that every baptized child is as sure of salvation as Abraham was. There can
be no possibility of his failure; for the compound double sense in which the
words of the covenant are to be taken, bring the believing parent into the
place of Abraham and the children into the place of his seed, and the promise
is, "I will be a God unto thee and thy seed after thee"-"I
will be their God;" and "no believer can have a richer promise than
this, that God will be his God." Nor is this all; here are temporal
blessings promised with just the same certainty and to just the same persons.
The covenant our brethren say, is everlasting, and is therefore yet in force.
Very well; just as everlasting as is the covenant, so everlasting is the
possession of the land of Canaan: "And I will give unto thee, and to thy
seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stronger, all the land of
Canaan, for an everlasting possession." No alchemy of a double sense,
simple or compound, can transmute this into the everlasting, inheritance of
the saints in glory; for it is the land wherein Abraham was a stranger, and
the Apostle says that he was a "stranger and pilgrim on the
earth."(Heb. xi. 13) And this promise must belong to him who is duly
baptized in infancy. He has an inheritance divinely guaranteed to him in the
land flowing with milk and honey. Thirdly, there is no reason why this great
privilege of infant baptism, with its train of, unspeakable blessings,
spiritual and temporal, should be limited to a single generation, For, a
believing parent standing in the place of Abraham, (according to the compound
double sense) the covenant is made with him in the same terms that it was
with Abraham, "to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, in
their generations." The grandchildren, great grand-children, and the
posterity down-why not to the end of the world? everlasting does not mean
less than that-may be baptized on the faith of a single ancestor, and inherit
the promise, "I will be their God, which is expressive of all that a
creature can need for time and eternity." Such are the manifest absurdities of
the Pedobaptist interpretation of the Covenant of Circumcision, and no
ingenuity can escape them, if their assumed positions are correct. But now I
shall be asked, was not God spiritually Abraham's God? and does not that
fact, which all must admit, establish the spiritual nature of these promises?
I answer, God was spiritually Abraham's God, but not by virtue of this
covenant. He was so, long. before this time, by virtue of the NEW COVENANT
revealed to him 24 years before he was circumcised, and by faith in that. So
the Apostle tells us distinctly in the fourth chapter of Romans. The same was
true of Isaac, and Jacob, and Joseph, and Moses, and Aaron, and Joshua, and
Samuel, and David and all the Old Testament saints. But God was never any
one's God, spiritually, by virtue of the covenant of circumcision, and never
promised to be. In that covenant, he brought Abraham and his posterity into a
peculiar external relation to himself. Their faith, or their want of faith,
would not affect that external relation. They might be believers, as Abraham,
Joseph, and David; or they might be unbelievers, as Achan, Joab, and Absalom.
God promised to be the God of Abraham
and his posterity, in an external and national sense. He was so. He
distinguished them above all the nations of the earth as his people. He
committed to them his oracles. He established among them his visible worship.
To them, of all nations, pertained the Shechinah, and the symbols of the
Divine presence. He gave them many facilities for obtaining a true knowledge
of himself, and of truly worshipping and serving him. He watched over them
with a peculiar providential regard. He often interposed for them in a
remarkable and miraculous manner. These are the blessings promised in
this covenant. National blessings, temporal blessings, outward religious
privileges, but not spiritual blessings. So the Apostle tells us in Rom. iii.
2, in answer to the question, "What profit is there of circumcision?
Much every way; chiefly because that unto them were committed the oracles of
God." This, mark, was the chief advantage-the oracles of God-that, is
the word and public worship of God. This is the sense in which that sort
of phraseology is always used in the Old Testament, except when it is
employed by the prophets to describe gospel times. Thus God declared to
Israel at Mount Sinai, "I am the Lord thy God, that brought thee out of
the land of Egypt;" and yet scarcely a month elapsed before the people
who were thus addressed were dancing around a golden calf, and that whole
generation, with a few individual exceptions, perished in unbelief. So in the
first chapter of Isaiah, the Jews are spoken of as a sinful nation, a people
laden with iniquity, a seed of evil doers, children that are corrupters;
while yet, in the same connection, God calls them "my people." So
elsewhere, God speaks of "the wickedness of my people Israel." Let
any one take a full concordance of the Bible, and examine the places where
the phrases, "The Lord thy God," "The Lord your God,"
"The Lord their God," "My people," and other similar expressions
are used, and he will find that their usual application in the Old Testament
is to Israel considered as a nation without any reference to their spiritual
state. They are often applied to Israel when sunk in idolatry and the deepest
moral corruption. When the Prophets are speaking of New Testament times, they
sometimes use these expressions in a New Testament sense; but apart from
these instances the common usage is as I have stated it to be. CIRCUMCISION A POSITIVE ORDINANCE THE law which establishes the rite of
circumcision is a positive, in distinction from being a moral law. The
distinction between moral and positive laws is one recognized by all
accustomed to think on these subjects; and indeed the recognition of it is
absolutely essential to any correct reasoning upon the subject of external
rites. It is well stated by Bishop Butler. "Moral precepts, are precepts
the reason of which we see; positive precepts, are precepts the reason of
which we do not see. Moral duties arise out of the nature of the case prior
to external command; positive duties do not arise out of the nature of the
case but from external command; nor would they be duties at all, were it not
for such command, received from Him whose creatures and subjects we
are." As I presume every one will admit that circumcision is a positive
ordinance, I need not spend time to show it. Every one must see that
circumcision could never have been a duty before it was commanded, nor to
those to whom it was not commanded. But if it were a moral duty, it would
have been binding always and universally; and if it is a positive ordinance
the law which requires it, if obeyed at all, must be obeyed according to its
letter. None but He who made the law can abrogate or change it in the least
particular. No one has the least business to speak of obeying the spirit of
it while he changes the letter; since the whole reason for obeying it at all
lies in the letter, and we can know nothing about the spirit of it except by
the letter. But now observe what liberties our
brethren have taken with this covenant and law of circumcision, while they
claim that it is still in force, that they are living under it, and enjoying
its privileges. 1. They have greatly extended it. The covenant, by its very
terms, is limited to Abraham and his natural seed and to such persons from
other nations as should be incorporated into the family or nation by
purchase, captivity, birth among them, or other means of naturalization; in
other words, to natural or proselyted Jews. They have extended it to
Christians among all nations and their natural seed; and they have made this
extension without anything like a Divine warrant for it. 2. They have changed its appointed
rite, from circumcision to sprinkling a little water in the face. Have they
any authority for making this change? Not the least. They often affirm that
God has changed the "seal" of the covenant from circumcision to
baptism; but they affirm it without any scriptural authority. They are bound
to show a clear precept; for the law establishing the rite of circumcision is
very explicit. It will not do to say that the covenant is one thing and the
law of circumcision another, a mere appendage to the first; it is given as
essential to the very covenant itself. "Thou shalt keep my covenant
therefore-THIS is my COVENANT, which ye shall keep-every man child among you
shall be CIRCUMCISED. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin -and
my covenant shall be in your FLESH for an EVERLASTING COVENANT." There is no separating the rite of
circumcision from the covenant of which it is a part. This covenant is in no
respect more strongly declared to be everlasting than in the stipulation
which requires the observance of this rite. When God has declared, "My
covenant shall be in your FLESH for an EVERLASTING COVENANT," what are
our brethren thinking about while, claiming to live under it, and enjoy its
privileges, they simply sprinkle a little water in the face? What kind of
Being do they suppose they are covenanting with? 3. They have changed the
subjects of the rite. The covenant limits the rite to males; they have
extended their substitute to females. The covenant extends the privilege of
its rite to males among servants born in the house or bought with money; they
have denied the privilege of their substitute to this class of persons. The
covenant requires "that its rite shall be administered, to children at
eight days old; they administer their substitute to children from the natal
hour up to any age within the limits of minority. Such work have they made
with this covenant, involving a positive law. Extending, substituting,
contracting, expanding; here literal, there figurative, here simple sense,
there compound double sense; out-Swedenborging Swedenborg himself;-all this
in a covenant made by the God of everlasting and immutable truth. I ask again
what kind of Being do our brethren suppose they are covenanting with? THE USES OF THE RITE OF CIRCUMCISION THE most obvious use of the rite of
circumcision was to define, by a visible mark or sign, the ancient covenant
people of God. This rite distinguished the Jews from all other people, and
kept them distinct. Hence they were designated among the heathen as the
"circumcised Jews." Besides this, three other important purposes were
accomplished by this rite. 1. Circumcision had a peculiar use in reference to
Abraham; a use which applied to no one else. To him it was a seal of the
righteousness of his personal or individual faith. So the Apostle informs us
in Rom. iv. 11. "And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the
righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised." To him
it was such a seal, but we have no account that it was to an one else. Indeed
it obviously could not be to one who had no faith. It was said of Abraham
fifteen years before he received the sign of circumcision, "And he
believed in the Lord, and he counted it to him for righteousness."
Abraham plainly could not be justified on the ground of his faith, unless be
had a firm and abiding confidence in the promises on which his faith was
founded. These promises were two; the first necessarily antecedent to the
second, and, though temporal in its nature, just as essential to the
perfection of Abraham's faith as the second, which was spiritual. The first of
these promises secured to him a numerous posterity, and engaged that it
should become a powerful nation. Gen. xii. 2: "I will make of thee a
great nation." So chap. xv. 5: "And he brought him forth abroad and
said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number
them. And he said unto him, So shall thy seed be." The second of these
promises was, "In thee shall all the families of the earth be
blessed;" in which Abraham unquestionably recognized the Messiah. Less
than this, it would, seem, cannot be made of that declaration of Christ in
John viii. 56, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw
it and was glad." Now Abraham believed both these promises, and it was
in consequence of his unwavering faith that they would be fulfilled, not
withstanding all untoward appearances, that his faith was counted to him for
righteousness. (See Rom. iv. 18-23) And when God appeared to him, (Gen, xvii.
1) and said to him, I am El Shadaai, GOD ALL SUFFICIENT, repeated the promise
of a numerous and powerful people as his posterity, changed his name in
reference to it, made a covenant with him which brought him and his posterity
into a peculiar visible relation to himself, put a mark upon them which would
distinguish them from all other nations as his own people-his faith was
strengthened and established in God's promises, beyond the possibility of
being any more shaken. Though his heir was not yet born, and would not be
until he was an hundred years old and Sarah ninety, "he staggered not at
the promise of God," but since He, GOD ALL SUFFICIENT, had declared the
event would take place, and had made these definite arrangements in reference
to his posterity through that son whose future birth was as yet purely a
matter of faith, he knew that the promise would be fulfilled. In the
institution of circumcision he saw how his posterity would be kept from being
merged into the nations among which, in their national infancy, they might
sojourn, and thus the promise that he should become a great nation be
fulfilled;- and how as a nation they would be preserved distinct from all
other nations until the Messiah, the great foundation of his faith, should be
born. And thus circumcision became to him, a seal of the righteousness of
faith. But it is evident that it could never be to any other person, because
it could not have been to him except in the peculiar circumstances in which
he was placed. Still less could it be a seal of the righteousness of faith to
one who has no faith, as an infant of eight days, or an adult unbeliever. God
has made everything beautiful in its time, and place; but out of its time and
place, that which otherwise was comely and symmetrical, is deformed and
monstrous. There is perhaps another sense in which circumcision may
appropriately be said to have been a seal of the righteousness of Abraham's
faith. God was pleased to make his faith an appointed antecedent, and in that
sense, a condition of the peculiar blessings promised to him and his
posterity. When therefore, God appeared to him, renewed in the most solemn
manner the promises he had before made, (viz. in Gen. xii. 2 ; xv. 4, 51 18)
and gave to him, both for himself and his posterity, a visible sign or token
of the fulfillment of those promises, that fact removed all possible uncertainty
in relation to the bestowment of those blessings, because God by that act,
expressed most clearly his approbation of Abraham's faith. It was his seal
set to the righteousness or acceptableness of it. Hence Paul says, "He
received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith
which he had yet being uncircumcised;" i. e. the same rite became at
once, a sign, or token of God's covenant with Abraham and his posterity, and
a seal of the acceptableness of Abraham's faith. But it is still more clear,
from this point of view, that it could not have been a seal of the
righteousness of faith, to any but Abraham. It was by conferring this
distinction especially upon him-that of giving to him and to his posterity
for his sake, this covenant and rite- that God so strikingly expressed his
approbation of his faith and so sealed it; i.e. made a declaration which all
might understand that he was pleased with it. But circumcision was not the
seal of the righteousness of the faith of Jacob, or Moses, or Joshua, or
Samuel, or David, because their faith had no agency in giving them either the
rite, or the privileges secured in the covenant. They received the rite when
they could not have had faith; and they received that, and the blessings
promised in the covenant, for the sake of the faith of Abraham, their
ancestor. 2. Circumcision was a token, or
visible sign of the covenant between God and Abraham, including his
posterity. So it is called in Gen. xvii. 11. "And ye shall circumcise
the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt
me and you." We often hear the declaration made that circumcision was
the seal of God's covenant with his people in the ancient dispensation, and
baptism is now the seal of the same covenant. Both of these assertions stand
on the same foundation; and that is, the imagination of those who make them.
It is marvelous that this declaration should be made and reiterated so often,
without a syllable of Scripture to support it. If any one can find a passage
in the Bible in which circumcision is called the seal of any covenant, he
will be more successful than I have been. It is never called a seal except in
Rom. iv. 11, where it is called a seal of the righteousness of Abraham's
faith. It was the TOKEN of the covenant between God and his ancient people.
But a token and a seal are two different things. A seal is affixed to an
instrument to ratify or confirm it. If an instrument requires the
ratification of a seal, it is not valid until the seal is affixed and cannot
properly be said to have existence. Hence the covenant of grace was never
called a covenant, (except in prophetic language) until after it had received
its appointed seal, the blood of Christ. On the contrary, a token is a
visible sign or evidence of the existence of a covenant, that would have real
and valid existence without the token, but still the parties interested might
need the token to assure them of its existence. Thus God made a covenant with
Noah not to destroy the world again by a flood, of which the rainbow is the
appointed token or sign. Now, if it is evident that God might have determined
and promised not to destroy the world by a flood, and that determination be
perfectly immutable without any visible token; but the token is to us an assurance
of the existence of that determination. So circumcision was always a sign or
proof to the Jew, that he was in a peculiar sense in covenant with God; while
nevertheless that covenant, might have existed, and been perfectly valid,
without the token. Circumcision then was not a seal, to ratify and give
validity to the covenant, but a token or visible sign to the Jew that a true
and valid covenant existed. 3. Circumcision was a type of inward
or spiritual purity. So it is used in both the Old and New Testaments. Of the
multitude of passages that might be quoted, I shall only cite a few as
examples. Deut. x. 16-11-"Circumcise the
foreskin of your hearts;" xxx. 6-11-"And the Lord thy God will
circumcise thine heart." Jer. iv. 4- 11-"Circumcise yourselves to
the Lord, and take away the foreskins of your heart." Rom. ii. 28,
29-"For be is not a Jew who, is one outwardly, neither is that
circumcision which is outward, in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one
inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in
the letter, whose praise is not of men but of God." Col. ii. 11-
"In whom also ye are circumcised, with the circumcision made without
bands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision
of Christ;" i. e. by Christian circumcision. Here we are expressly told
what Christian circumcision is. It is the circumcision made without hands,
not baptism, nor any other external rite. Here we may see what New Testament
fact circumcision represents. It is not a type of baptism, but of the
purification of the heart which all the spiritual Israel experience. The
nation of Israel, who were in an outward sense the people of God, were a type
of those who are spiritually the people of God; and as all who were of the
outward Israel received the rite of circumcision, so all who are of the
spiritual Israel receive the spiritual purification typified by this
rite.-Phil. iii. 3. In further confirmation of what I have here shown, I will
state a general truth, which covers the whole subject of Old Testament
institutions, which I think no person who has thought much upon the
connection between the Old Testament and the New, will deny: -"No
external institution or fact in the Old Testament, is a type of a mere human
or external fact or rite in the New. External rites and external facts in the
Old Testament, are invariably types of spiritual or divine facts in the
New." To this rule I know of no exception. The only apparent exception
shall be considered in the next chapter. Thus particular men in the Old
Testament are types of Christ. The Passover is a type, not of the Lord's
Supper, but of the sacrifice of Christ. (I Cor. v. 7) The sacrifices of the Old Testament
are also types of the sacrifice of Christ. That the case now under
consideration is no exception, is evident from the fact that circumcision is
invariably spoken of in the Scriptures as a type of inward purification;
never as a type of outward baptism. (cont.) "The Covenant of
Circumcision" is part I of a book by J. Torrey Smith entitled, The
Scriptural and Historical Arguments for Infant Baptism Examined and was
published by the American Baptist Publication Society in 1850. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Please direct your comments to Mike Krall.