|
|
|
|
The Covenant of
Circumcision Part II AN APPARENT EXCEPTION TO A GENERAL RULE: I PET. iii. 21.
ANALOGY AND DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CIRCUMCISION AND BAPTISM. THE usual interpretation of 1 Pet. iii. 21, presents an exception to
the rule stated near the close of the last chapter; and as it is the only
apparent exception I know of, it is worth while to inquire whether it is
merely apparent or real. If merely apparent the rule is established without
exception. “An antitype to which baptism, now saves us” &c. According to the
usual interpretation of this passage, baptism is an antitype of the ark, or
the waters of the flood, or the fact that Noah and his family were saved in
the ark from the flood, (some taking one of these particulars as the one
referred to by the Apostle, and some another) and consequently one or another
of these historical facts is a type of the external ordinance of baptism. But
this interpretation assumes that the word "antitupon" (antitype) is
used in this text as precisely equivalent to our theological word antitype; a
point by no means to be taken for granted. The original word is used in but
one other place in the New Testament: Heb. ix. 24, “Christ is not entered
into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures (antitupon,
antitypes) of the true;” where the word is used in a sense exactly opposed to
our theological word antitype. Using these words in their theological sense,
we should say that the holy places made with hands are the types of the true,
and the true holy places are antitypes of those made with hands; whereas the
Apostle says the holy places made with hands are the antitypes of the true.
He consequently uses the word antitype in precisely the sense of our word
type i. e., in a sense exactly opposite to that of our word antitype. The
affirmation of the Apostle is, that the holy places made with hands, are
types or figures,(tupa) corresponding (ajntiv) to the true holy places, or
heaven. We may here see what is the precise import of the word
"antitupon" in the New Testament. It is a type corresponding to
something else. That something else may be the thing signified by the type,
as in the passage in Hebrews; or it may be, for, aught that appears, some
other type, as it undoubtedly is in the passage in Peter. The Apostle says in
the 20th verse, that Noah and his family were saved by water, in the Ark.
This salvation from the flood was to them a type of final salvation from the
wrath of God. He proceeds in the next verse,-“A type corresponding to which,
(viz., to their salvation in the ark, which was to them a type of final
salvation) baptism, now saves us” &c. That is, believers have in their
baptism, a beautiful type of salvation, not less clear and instructive than
the one given to Noah and his family. In baptism is most expressively
symbolized the burial (which implies the death) and resurrection of Christ,
the great facts which are the foundation of salvation. In the same ordinance
is also symbolized the present salvation from sin of the believer, and his
future resurrection from the dead and eternal glorification. So that we have
in this ordinance a symbol, at once, of the salvation itself of the believer,
and of the means by which it is accomplished. The correspondence between these two types, consists in at least, the
two following particulars; 1. The salvation of the lives of Noah and his
family from the flood, was to them a clear and vivid type of final salvation
from the wrath of God. Baptism is a not less clear, and a more beautiful type
of the same great salvation. 2. Noah and his family had this type presented
to them by means of water; (diudatos))-Doddridge says, perhaps not
incorrectly, “by being carried through the water.” The believer’s type of
salvation is also presented to him by means of water; or if one prefers, by
being carried through the water. What place there is for the frequent
logomachy about the Ark’s being sprinkled with the waters of the deluge, the
intelligent reader may judge. Since writing the preceding remarks I find in Turretine a statement of
the rule I have laid down, and of the view I have given of I Pet. iii. 21. It
is stated with such strength and clearness of expression, that I cannot forbear
giving his words. He is speaking of the baptism of the Israelites in the
cloud and in the sea, and their eating of the manna, and drinking of the
rock, in 1 Cor. x. “For what Bellarmine sets forth, that these were not so much sacraments as types of sacraments, is absurd; inasmuch as a sacrament, since it is an eternal thing, (and indeed whatever is a type of any internal and spiritual thing) has no need of any other type by which it may be represented, Two types, indeed, can be given similar and corresponding to each other, of one and the same truth, and so far the ancient sacraments were antitypes of ours, that is, analogical and corresponding types, as the ark, with the waters of the flood, is called "antitupon” (an antitype) of our baptism, 1 Pet. iii. 21; but one type cannot be shadowed forth by another type, but both are brought forward, to represent one truth. So circumcision shadows forth not baptism, but the grace of re- generation which is equally signified by baptism; and the Passover represents, not the Lord’s Supper, but Christ set forth in the supper.” This extract from the great successor of Calvin, clearly recognizes an
analogy between circumcision and baptism, and as distinctly pronounces
against the typification of the latter by the former. This analogy may be
traced in several particulars; as for example, circumcision was the
initiating rite which secured to the Jew the privileges of the ancient
Theocracy; baptism is the initiating rite of the Christian Church.
Circumcision was a prerequisite to the Passover; baptism is to the Lord’s
Supper. Circumcision was, to the Jew, a type of spiritual renewal and
purification; baptism is, to the believer, a symbol of the same thing. This
analogy has doubtless misled many minds in their reasonings from one to the
other. But it is to be observed, the Pedobaptist conclusion depends, not on
an analogy between the two rites, but on the assumption that they are in all
respects identical, or else that the one typified the other. Indeed the
analogy is fatal to infant baptism. Circumcision was the visible mark which
distinguished the ancient covenant people from all others; baptism is the
rite which is appointed as the visible separation of the true holy people
from the unconverted world. And as circumcision was not administered to any,
who were not, either by birth or proselytism, already among the covenant
people, so the analogy should require that baptism should not be administered
to any who are not, by the new birth and faith, already among the true holy
people: a condition which excludes infants. So that to establish infant baptism from circumcision, the analogy must
be rejected, and identity or its equivalent assumed. Baptism, it is assumed,
has taken the place of circumcision, and is essentially the same thing. But
the points of difference between the two are too numerous and distinct to
admit any such identity. Circumcision could be given only to males; baptism
knows no distinction of sex. Circumcision was limited to born or naturalized
Jews; baptism knows no distinction of nation. Circumcision was required to be
given to native Jews, at eight days old; baptism is free to any age, as well
as either sex, after evidence of faith appears. Circumcision was the distinctive
ordinance of a National Church, the members of which entered it by birth and
therefore was required to be given to infants. Baptism is the distinctive
ordinance of a Spiritual Church, whose privileges none may share except those
who give evidence of the new birth, and therefore may not be given to
infants. Circumcision was the sign of hereditary privileges, and therefore
was required to be given to infants; baptism is the sign of privileges which
flow only through faith, and therefore may not be given to infants.
Circumcision require no antecednt instruction or discipline, in the case of
members of the Jewish household, and therefore might be given to infants;
baptism requires, in all cases, previous discipleship, and may not be given
to infants. Circumcision was not a command to the subject of the rite, but to
his parents, who alone were responsible for its fulfillment; baptism is a
command to the subject of the ordinance, and he alone is responsible for its
fulfillment. The subject of circumcision, in ordinary cases, was involuntary
and passive in its reception; the subject of baptism is in all cases required
to render active and voluntary obedience, receiving it in the exercise of
faith. Circumcision, by the very terms of its law, was a rite for infants;
baptism, by the terms of its law, excludes infants. So that, whether the
analogy between circumcision and baptism be considered, or the points of
difference between them, the institution of circumcision instead of affording
any argument for infant baptism, is a decisive refutation of it. ARGUMENTS FOR THE PERPETUITY OF THE COVENANT OF CIRCUMCISION
CONSIDERED. PEDOBAPTISTS, for the most part, affirm that the covenant of
circumcision is in force in the Gospel dispensation, and its rite still
remains by a substitute. Their principal arguments for this position shall
now be considered. The argument principally relied upon to prove the perpetuity of the
covenant of circumcision, is based on the declaration, twice affirmed in the
covenant itself, that it should be an everlasting covenant. “I will establish
my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee in their
generations, for an everlasting covenant.” “My covenant shall be in your
flesh for an everlasting covenant.” If the use of the word everlasting in this covenant proves its
perpetuity, let us see what other ancient institutions there are whose
perpetuity is proved by that same, word. In the original institution of the Passover, (Ex. xii) after minute
directions are given for taking the lamb, slaying it, sprinkling the blood,
roasting it in the fire, and eating it with unleavened bread, it is
commanded, “You shall keep it a feast by an ordinance FOREVER;” the same word
that in Gen. xvii. is rendered everlasting. After further directions it is again
repeated, “Ye shall observe this day in your generations, by an ordinance
FOREVER.” After further directions it is again repeated, “Ye shall observe
this thing for an ordinance to thee, and to thy sons, FOREVER.” To escape the
obvious conclusion here, it cannot be said that the Passover had a certain
typical meaning which still remains, to which the word everlasting or forever
applies; for that is not what is affirmed. A particular feast is described,
and that is required to be kept forever. A particular day in the year is
pointed out, which is to be observed in a particular manner forever. In Lev. xvi., after describing the ceremonies to be observed on the
annual day of expiation, it is said “And this shall be a statute FOREVER.
(the same word that is rendered everlasting in Gen. xvii) unto you: that in
the seventh month on the tenth day of the month, ye shall afflict your souls
and do no work at all.” “It shall be a Sabbath of rest unto you, and ye shall
afflict your souls by a statute FOREVER.” “And this shall be an EVERLASTING
statute unto you, to make an atonement for all their sins once a year.” The
language here applies the word everlasting specifically to that observance of
the rites of expiation once a year, and in that specific day, the tenth of
the seventh month. Lev. vii. 35-37. “For the wave breast and the heave
shoulder have I taken of the children of Israel, from off the Sacrifices of
their peace offerings, and have given them unto Aaron the priest, and unto
his sons, by a statute FOREVER. This is the portion of the anointing of
Aaron, and of the anointing of his sons, which the Lord commanded to be given
them of the children of Israel by a statute FOREVER.” Lev. xxiii. 41-2. Of the Feast of Tabernacles it is said, “Ye shall
keep it a feast unto the Lord seven days in the year; it shall be a statute
FOREVER In your generations: ye shall celebrate it in the seventh mouth. Ye
shall dwell in booths seven days.” Numb. xviii. 8, 19, 23. “ And the Lord
spake unto Aaron, behold I also have given, thee the charge of mine heave
offerings, and of all the hallowed things of the children of Israel, unto
thee have I given them, and to thy sons by an ordinance FOREVER. All the
heave offerings of the holy things which the children of Israel offer unto the
Lord, have I given thee and thy sons, and thy daughters with thee, by a
statute FOREVER: it is a covenant of salt FOREVER. It shall be a statute
FOREVER throughout your generations, that among the children of Israel they
(the Levites) have no inheritance.” Numb. xix. 10, 21. “And he that gathereth
the ashes of the heifer shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the
even: and it shall be for a statute FOREVER. It shall be a perpetual (the
same word that is elsewhere rendered everlasting and forever) statute, that
he that sprinkleth the water of separation shall wash his clothes.” Numb. xxv. 11, 13. “ Phineas the son of Eleazar the son of Aaron the
priest, hath turned my wrath away from the children of Israel. Wherefore say,
behold I give unto him my covenant of peace. And he shall have it, and his
seed after him, even the covenant of an EVERLASTING Priesthood.” It will
thus, be seen that if the use of the word everlasting in the covenant of
circumcision will prove its perpetuity, the same word applied to the Aaronic
priesthood, and to almost every institute of the Mosaic economy will prove
the perpetuity of that entire economy. That the word everlasting, in Hebrew, Greek, or English, properly means
endless, is a perfectly clear case; while, still to contend that it is never
applied to subjects or facts which have a limited duration would be a folly
which would defeat its own end. The only principle on which it can be
successfully interpreted is, that it expresses a duration coextensive with
the existence of the Being, economy or dispensation, of which that which is
called everlasting is an attribute or adjunct. For example: when it is
applied to anything that pertains to the nature of God, it has its proper
meaning of endless, because proper eternity belongs to God. When it is
applied to anything pertaining to the future existence of the soul, it has
its proper meaning of endless, because the soul is immortal. When it is
applied to the Aaronic priesthood, or to any of the Mosaic institutes, it
does not mean endless, but it expresses a duration as long as the typical
dispensation continued, of which these were adjuncts. On this principle, to
what period of time would the epithet everlasting, applied to this covenant
in Gen. xvii., lead us to expect its continuance? This question is answered
by ascertaining to which dispensation it belonged. I have already shown, that
it was an adjunct of the typical dispensation. It must then have had an
existence as long as that dispensation remained. This is precisely what the
word everlasting, applied to it, requires. Ps. cv. 8, is sometimes quoted to prove the perpetuity of this
covenant. “He hath remembered his covenant forever; the word which he
commanded to a thousand generations.” Here we may observe, (1) The covenant
stipulation which God is represented here as remembering forever, and for a
thousand generations, is distinctly stated in the 11th verse saying: “Unto
thee will I give the land of Canaan, the lot of your inheritance.” It must
then be admitted that the word thousand here does not mean that definite
number, or that God has not remembered his covenant; for Israel has been
dispossessed of that land for nearly 2000 years. (2) The indefiniteness of
the expressions, a thousand, ten thousand, &c., in the poetic parts of
the Old Testament, is too obvious to require any very extended remark. As
examples, I will refer to the following passages: Deut. i. 11 ; Job ix. 3;
xxxiii. 23; Ps. i. 10; lxxxiv. 10; xc. 4; xci. 7; Isa. xxx. 17; ix. 22; Lev.
xxvi. 8; Deut. xxxii. 30; xxxiii. 2; Cant. v. 10. In this text and the
context the word is interchanged with forever and everlasting, and is to be
interpreted on the same principles. Another argument for the perpetuity of the covenant of circumcision, is
based on a misapplication of the passages in Galatians, in which the Apostle
speaks of the perpetuity of the covenant of grace in Christ which was
previously revealed to Abraham. That the argument may have all the benefit of
a fair statement, I will transcribe it verbatim from a sermon, published by
the authority of a Presbyterian Synod, before which it was delivered on a
year’s appointment, by Rev. Dr. White of New York. “And besides, what saith the
New Testament on this subject? Does it, or does it not recognize the
Abrahamic Covenant as still in existence and of force? We shall hear. -Know
ye, therefore, that they which are of faith, the same are the children of
Abraham. And the Scriptures, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen
through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall
all nations be blessed. Christ bath redeemed us from the curse of the law,
being made a curse for us, that the blessing of Abraham might come on the
Gentiles through Jesus Christ. Brethren, I speak after the manner of men:
though it be but a man’s covenant yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth
or addeth thereto. And this I say, that the covenant which was confirmed
before of God in Christ, the law which was 430 years after, cannot disannul
that it should make the promise of none effect; and, if Ye be Christ’s, then
are ye Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise.’ These passages
occur in the third chapter of Galatians.” “Now here it is expressly
affirmed, that believers under the Christian dispensation, are partakers of
the blessings which were promised to Abraham, and are recognized as his
spiritual seed.” Precisely so, I answer; and this is what proves that
the infants of Gentile believers are not recognized by the Apostle as having
anything to do with it. Infants of Gentile believers are neither of Abraham’s
natural seed, nor of his spiritual seed for it is “believers” who “are
recognized as his spiritual seed;” and the only way that the natural seed of
believers are brought in here, is by the compound double sense of the word
“seed” before illustrated. The argument refutes itself. The learned, Doctor
continues: “It is also expressly
affirmed that Christ came in the flesh, and was crucified, not to destroy the
covenant, but to fulfill its provisions, that the blessing of Abraham might
come on the Gentiles through him. This certainly could not be true, if the
covenant had ceased to exist. And it is further expressly affirmed, that the
law which was given at Sinai, could have no effect to disannul the covenant,
which was 430 years older than itself, and which had been confirmed by God as
a perpetual covenant. See Gen. xvii. 7.” Now this certainly proves that the covenant of which
Paul speaks, still exists, and is a perpetual covenant; and it also proves
most conclusively that he is not speaking of the covenant of circumcision. He
is speaking of a covenant which was revealed to Abraham 430 years before the
law. But I have chronologically proved that the covenant of circumcision was
not made until 406 years before the law, instead of 430. The Apostle tells us
precisely what covenant he was here speaking of, in one of the verses quoted
above by the Doctor: “And the Scriptures foreseeing that God would justify
the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying,
In thee shall all nations be blessed;” quoting from Gen. xii. 3, and not from
Gen. xvii. Then, to establish the point with entire certainty, he fixes the
date of it-430 years before the law, which carries us 24 years before Gen.
xvii. to the same point with his quotation, Gen. xii. 3. Can Dr. White
deceive himself so much as to suppose that this covenant, 430 years before
the law, has a reference to Gen. xvii. 7, to which he refers? And if he can
does he expect that everybody else will be deceived with him? None but those
who wish to be. The argument refutes itself. The fallacy is the one I exposed
at length in Chapter III., to which I will again refer the reader. The
eleventh chapter of Romans is much relied upon to prove the perpetuity of the
covenant of circumcision and the identity of the church established upon it
with the Gospel church. If this chapter be carefully read, it will be
perceived that there is not one word said in it of any covenant with Abraham,
or anybody else through him-not one word of circumcision, or of baptism, or
of any church whatever. If it is said that the figure of the good olive tree
indicates a church, I will ask, in the pertinent language of another,17 “What
organization is meant by the wild olive tree from which the Gentiles, as
branches, are cut off?” The wild olive tree, by universal admission,
expresses a state or condition of not being in favor with God; and the good
olive tree must by all the laws of antithesis, denote a state of favor with
God, which certainly does not necessarily imply a church relation. The
truths, then, which particularly bear on our subject, taught by the Apostles
in this chapter, are, that the Jews were cut off from the distinction of
being the peculiar and favored people of God, which they bad enjoyed from the
time of Abraham, not because they failed in fulfilling the condition imposed
in the covenant of circumcision, or the conditions superadded at Sinai-for it
appears that they were then very punctilious about these, and continue to be
to this day-but for UNBELIEF, (verse 20) and the rejection of Christ; i.e.
for failing to see that circumcision and all the ceremonial observances were
appointed as types of the true sacrifice and the spiritual church, and
consequently were totally valueless after the offering of that sacrifice and
the establishment of the spiritual church. If the covenant of circumcision
were then in force the observance of its conditions by the Jews, (among which
there is no mention of faith) would have secured them the advantages of still
being the peculiar people of God; and the fact that they did fulfill those
conditions, and yet were cut off from those privileges, proves that the
covenant was not in force, and that being abrogated, the observance of its
conditions would secure no advantage whatever. And now, the Apostle tells us,
believers, whether Jews or Gentiles, enjoy this distinction, not by virtue of
the covenant of circumcision, nor by baptism, whether administered in infancy
or adult age, but by FAITH. “Because of unbelief they were broken off, and
thou standest by faith.” So that this passage, instead of proving the
perpetuity of the covenant of circumcision, and the identity of the Abrahamic
with the Gospel church, proves the contrary. Up to the coming of Christ, God
had determined to bless the Jews on the principles of the covenant of
circumcision; after that, if he blessed them at all, it, must be on other
principles. The Jews obstinately adhered to the principles of that covenant,
determined to be blessed so or not at all. The result we know. They were
blessed, not at all, instead of being blessed so. Are not our brethren
following a dangerous precedent in their tenacious adherence to that same
covenant? THE COVENANT OF CIRCUMCISION ABROGATED. THAT the Covenant of Circumcision has expired, and its rite is totally
abolished, its typical signification only remaining, is implied in many of
the arguments already advanced. Still, that the point may be rendered
perfectly clear, it may be desirable to have the arguments which establish it
presented by themselves in consecutive order. When I admit that the typical
signification of the rite of circumcision, remains, I do not wish that to be
understood as any exception to the total abrogation of the covenant and the
rite. The typical meaning of the Aaronic priesthood remains; the priesthood
itself is abolished., The typical meaning of the Passover remains; the Pass
over itself is abolished. The typical meaning of the ceremonial sacrifices
remains; the sacrifices are abolished. So the typical meaning of circumcision
remains; circumcision itself is abolished, and the covenant has expired. 1.
By the advent of Christ, the covenant of circumcision expired by its own
limitation. Is it asked how shall we know what its limitation was? I answer,
we may know both by its nature, and the purpose to be accomplished by it. In
its nature it is a part of the law. It is conceived in a legal spirit, and
expressed in legal terms. Its nature and spirit are such that it could not
exist under a dispensation of grace and faith. When that dispensation was
introduced it must have expired. Its purpose was accomplished by the death of Christ. What was its
purpose? It was to keep the nation of Israel distinct from all other nations,
until Christ the promised seed of Abraham should come, in whom all the
families of the earth should be blessed. This was necessary in order that
Christ might appear distinctly and plainly before the world. And the three
things provided in this covenant kept them distinct: first, God was in a
peculiar sense their God; secondly, they had the land of Canaan to dwell in,
which prevented their being scattered among the nations; thirdly, the rite of
circumcision gave them an additional peculiarity, further tending to the same
result. But when Christ came all the objects of the covenant being
accomplished, it necessarily expired. 2. The nature and constitution of the
church, founded on the covenant of circumcision, is totally distinct from the
Gospel Church, and opposed to it in every particular. The one was a National
Church; the other a “kingdom not of this world.” The one was entered by the
natural birth; the other requires the spiritual birth as a prerequisite for
admission. The one insists on outward forms only; the other requires
spiritual worship. The one requires ceremonial purity only; the other
holiness of heart. So different are they, that they cannot co-exist, except
as antagonists. If God established them both, he must have removed the one,
before he established the other. I would be far from affirming that God did not as truly require
holiness of heart in the ancient, as in the Gospel dispensation. He has in
all ages, and under all dispensations, required of men, repentance, faith,
holiness of heart, and spiritual worship. But I affirm that he did not
require these in the ancient dispensation, as conditions of church
membership. Joab, for aught that appears, was in as good standing in the
Jewish Church as David was, though the one was a child of God, and the other
the child of the Devil. 3. I have shown from direct Scripture testimony, that
the covenant of circumcision was an essential part of the ceremonial law of
Moses. But that law was abrogated by the death of Christ, with all its
appendages. 4. I have shown that the covenant of circumcision was identical
with the Old Covenant, in distinction from the New. But Paul informs us in
the 8th chapter of Hebrews, that the old covenant is done away. 5. In the
opening of the gospel dispensation, under the preaching of John, the
abrogation of the covenant of circumcision is, to say the least, pretty
strongly intimated. “Bring forth fruits meet for repentance and think not to
say within yourselves, we have Abraham to our father.” Now this is aimed
directly at the covenant of circumcision. The plea of any title to religious
privileges on the ground of descent from Abraham, has its original foundation
on that covenant. The Baptist, by pronouncing the plea no longer valid,
establishes the invalidity of the covenant on which the plea is founded. 6. When the gospel dispensation was fully introduced and the Gospel
Church set up, the principles of the covenant of circumcision were entirely
repudiated. No person, by virtue of parentage, or descent from Abraham, or
anybody else, was admitted to its privileges. The great Commission excluded
from baptism all who were not disciples, and on these principles the Apostles
uniformly acted. 7. The Apostles, in full council, decided that the covenant of
circumcision is not in force in the Christian Church. This is an important
and decisive fact, and is worthy of careful attention. The account of it is
contained in Acts xv. The first five verses state the controversy, in which
we find that the Judaizing teachers enforced upon the Gentile converts
circumcision and the observance of the law of Moses, as parts of one system,
based upon the same authority, and standing or falling together. We find,
from the recorded opinions of Peter and James, that the Apostles also
regarded them as parts of one system, based upon the same authority, and
therefore decided that they could not be enforced upon Gentile Christians.
And this was a virtual prohibition upon the whole church, unless it be
supposed that God designed that there should be a permanent distinction in
the church between Jews and Gentiles; which I think few will contend for in
the light of such passages as the following-Eph. ii. 14-18. Col. ii. 14. Gal.
iii. 26, 29. The fact that the Jewish converts practiced circumcision in the
apostolic age, does not affect this argument. There were many reasons
existing why the Jewish converts did not at once forsake their old ritual.
Under the circumstances this was hardly to be expected. The Apostles
themselves were full of Jewish prejudices when they began their work. and it
was not without much instruction of the Holy Spirit, added to much study and
observation, that they were able to surmount them; could their converts,
without those advantages, be expected at once to rise above such prejudices?
It should also be kept in mind, that not only was the observance of
circumcision permitted to the Jewish converts, but this permission also
extended to the entire ceremonial law. This is clear from the passage now
under consideration, and chap. xx 20, 21, is still clearer to the same point.
If then, this apostolic permission to the Jewish converts, of adhering to
circumcision, is proof that it was not abrogated, the same permission in
regard to the entire ceremonial law, is proof that that also was not abolished
by the death of Christ. If the fact that Paul circumcised Timothy, (Acts xvi.
3) is proof that the covenant of circumcision remained in force, the fact
that he shaved his head in Cenchrea, (xviii. 18) and that he went to
Jerusalem to the Temple to fulfill a vow and bring sacrifices, (xxi. 24, 26)
will prove that the sacrificial laws of Moses remained in force. The truth
is, we are not to consider that the Jewish dispensation continued in full
force up to a certain time, then suddenly ceased, and the full day of the
Gospel dispensation at once succeeded it. They overlap each other somewhat.
The Jewish dispensation certainly continued in force until the death of
Christ, and the gospel sun did not rise until after that event; yet the
gospel day dawned with the ministry of John. And as the morning twilight of
the gospel day began before the death of Christ, so some shades of the Jewish
night, or rather morning clouds and mists; might be expected to remain some
time after that, hovering about that solemn and splendid Temple, affecting in
a certain degree the minds, and obscuring the perceptions of Jewish
Christians while it stood. 8. If the covenant of circumcision were still in force, how could Paul
write as he did in the Epistle to the Galatians? What powerful reasoning,
what strong invective, what vehement expostulation, does he direct both
against the rite of circumcision, and against the principles on which the
rite is founded! Thus (chap. i. 6, 7) he says, “I marvel that ye are so soon
removed from the grace of him that called you, into another gospel. Which is
not another, (i.e. is not a gospel); but there are some that trouble you, and
would pervert the gospel of Christ.” -Chap. v. 11, 12. “And I brethren, if I
yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offense
of the cross ceased. I would they were even cut off which trouble you.”-Chap.
vi. 11, 12. “Ye see how large a letter I have written to you with mine own
hand. As many as desire to make a fair show in the flesh, they constrain, you
to be circumcised.” These passages show against whom, and what, the Epistle
is directed. Hear him further, chap. iii. 1, 3: “O foolish Galatians, who
hath bewitched you! Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now
made perfect by the flesh?” Again, in the fourth chapter, he begins an
expostulation which continues through that chapter, and extends into the
next. Verse 9: “But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of
God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire
to be in bondage?” Ver. 19, 21: “My little children, of whom I travail in
birth until Christ be formed in you, I desire to be present with you now, and
to change my voice, for I stand in doubt of you. Tell me, ye that desire to
be under the law, do ye not hear the law?” He then introduces the allegory of
Hagar and Sarah, and their sons, quotes the direction to “cast out the
bond-woman and her son,” and adds, “So then, brethren, we are not children of
the bond-woman but of the free. Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith
Christ hath made us free and be not entangled again in the yoke of bondage.
(Compare Acts xv. 10) Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised
Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify to every man that is
circumcised, that he, is a debtor to do the whole law.” It is truly a matter of astonishment that any man can read the Epistle
to the Galatians, and yet gravely affirm that the covenant of circumcision is
still in force, and is the covenant of grace. Paul’s reasonings are directed
as much against the principles on which the rite is founded, as against the
rite itself. Is it said, that Paul’s arguments are directed against the rite
as founded on the Mosaic law, and not as founded on the covenant in Gen.
xvii.? The answer is obvious. Was the rite of circumcision founded on the
covenant in Gen. xvii., or was it not? Everybody responds, it was. Will then
any one contend that Paul represents the case contrary to the very letter of
scripture? But you insist, Paul does represent it as founded on the Mosaic
law. True, and yet the fact is indisputable that it was founded on the
covenant in Gen. xvii. It is not even re-enacted any where else. Now, unless
the Covenant in Gen. xvii. and the Mosaic law are inseparable parts of one
system, so that when the last is mentioned the first is included, Paul stands
convicted of representing this matter contrary to the very letter of
scripture. 9. In the second chapter of Colossians, Paul declares that Christ
blotted out the covenant of circumcision, and nailed it to his cross. He
begins at the 8th verse, “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy
and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments (the same
word is translated “elements” in Gal. iv. 9, “beggarly elements,”) of the
world, and not after Christ. And ye are complete in him, in whom also ye are
circumcised with the circumcision made without hands;” as much as to say ye
have no need of the Jewish circumcision which is made with hands. “And you,
being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath be
quickened together with him- blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that
was against us, that was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing
it to his cross.” That the covenant of circumcision is included in this
“handwriting of ordinances,” is plain from the connection. That covenant was
contrary to them, because it was a charter of peculiar privileges to Jews.
And Paul informs them that since Christ had blotted it out and took it out of
the way, and nailed it to his cross, the way was open for their being
quickened together with him, notwithstanding they were dead in sins, and the
uncircumcision of their flesh, i.e.. had never received the Jewish rite of
circumcision. The handwriting, that is, the covenant, or law of circumcision
is, with all the typical ordinances, blotted out, and NAILED TO THE CROSS. Is
it well to attempt to restore it ? 10. In Eph. ii. 11-15, Paul declares that Christ has abolished in his
flesh the ordinance or covenant of circumcision. “Wherefore remember that ye
being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called uncircumcision by
that which is called the circumcision in the flesh made by hands, that at
that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of
Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promises having no hope, and
without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus, ye who sometime were afar
off, are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made
both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us,
having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments
contained in ordinances, for to make in himself of twain, one new man so
making peace.” Now the Apostle declares that whatever ordinances tended to
separate Jews and Gentiles, Christ abolished. And every ordinance that
indicated that the Jews had any peculiar privileges as a nation, was a middle
wall of partition. And of all the Jewish ordinances, none indicated this more
clearly than circumcision. This is expressed in the eleventh verse. The
covenant of circumcision was the first charter of peculiar privileges to the
Jews. And if the ordinance of circumcision was abolished, the covenant of
circumcision was, for in no other place in the five books of Moses is
circumcision ordained as a general law to Israel than in Gen. xvii., where it
is a covenant. CIRCUMCISION HAS NO SUBSTITUTE. PEDOBAPTISTS generally admit that circumcision is abolished, but they
also claim that when it was abolished; baptism was introduced as its
substitute. It is surprising that this assertion should be so often made in
regard to a point which ought to have clear scripture proof, and so little
attempt be made to produce any. Dr. White, in his sermon before referred to,
makes the assertion as usual, without referring to a single text to support
it. The substance of his argument is the following: “The seal of a covenant is no part of the covenant itself; it is a mere
appendage, wholly distinct from the compact which it ratifies. It is liable,
therefore, to be separated from it; to be removed or changed; and that too
when no change takes place in the covenant itself. There is a manifest reason
why circumcision should pass away with the law of ceremonies; but is there
any reason why the covenant should be left without a token or seal? We surely
know of none. If the original seal is removed, we look for another in its
place. Has the covenant then a new seal? Upon this point, among Christians,
there happens to be no dispute. Baptism is universally received by those who
do not deny the existence of all external ordinances, as the sign and badge
of the righteousness of faith, or of a Christian profession under the new
dispensation. Is it asked, does it take the place of circumcision? We answer,
no denomination of evangelical Christians uses it for any other purpose.” Here are almost as many errors as there are lines. In the first place,
it is assumed that the terms “token” and “seal” are synonymous. I have shown
that they are not, (pp. 30,31). Again, it is assumed that circumcision was
the seal of the Abrahamic covenant. I have shown that it was a seal of no
covenant, but of the righteousness of Abraham’s faith. Then it is said that
the seal of a covenant is no part of the covenant itself; it is a mere
appendage, liable to be separated from it, to be removed or changed. Now it
would certainly have done something towards strengthening this position, had
Dr. White produced an example of what he affirms generally of covenants. From
all the covenants which God has ever made with men, not a single example of a
change of the seal or token can be produced, unless the one under
consideration furnish one. Then, if from an examination of the different
covenants which God has made with men, the general principle had been
established, that the token or seal is no part of the covenant itself, but a
mere appendage, how could this be affirmed of the covenant in Gen. xvii., in
the face of the express terms of it? “Thou shalt keep my covenant. This is my
covenant which ye shall keep; every man child among you shall be circumcised.
My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And the
uncircumcised manchild, whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that
soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.” How in
the face of these express declarations any man can affirm that circumcision
is no part of the covenant, but a mere appendage, is certainly beyond
ordinary comprehension. Again he asks, “Is there any reason why the covenant
should be left without a token or seal?” No one claims that it was left
without a token. God declared that the rite of circumcision, as its token,
should be coeval with the covenant itself, and it was. Both passed away at
once. Again he assumes that there is no dispute among Christians that baptism
is a new seal of the old Abrahamic covenant! A Professor of Theology in New
York as ignorant as this of the views of Christians all around him! Again, he
assumes that the sign and badge of the righteousness of faith, is the same
thing as a sign and badge of a Christian profession. The reputation of the
Union Theological Seminary is a sufficient guarantee, that Dr. White’s
theological instruction is not all as loose-jointed as this. Again he says;
“Is it asked, does baptism take the place of circumcision? We answer, no
denomination of Christians uses it for any other purpose.” What an assertion!
Does not Dr. White know that one denomination of Christians uses baptism for some
other purpose than as a substitute for circumcision? viz., for the same
purposes that the Apostles did-as a symbol of the burial and resurrection of
Christ, of the believer’s separation from sin and of his future resurrection
from the dead and eternal glorification. Rom. vi. 3. This is the substance of Dr. White’s argument to prove that baptism is
the substitute of circumcision. Not a text of Scripture does he quote. There
is a text, however, usually quoted to prove this point. It is Col. ii. 11, 12
“In whom 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 ye also are risen with him, through the
faith of the operation of God.” Now I cannot help remarking that our brethren
must be in an unpleasant dilemma on this text. In order to make it say
anything at all on the question whether baptism is a substitute for
circumcision, they must admit that it speaks of literal water baptism. But
this cuts off their favorite sprinkling; for the baptism here is immersion,
and can be nothing else-“buried with him in baptism wherein ye also are risen
with him.” To escape this consequence, they are obliged to deny that the
reference is to literal baptism; and then it is of no use to them on the
question of the substitute. If spiritual baptism is here referred to, i. e.
spiritual renovation, (which I do not admit) the text, if it prove anything
with respect to a substitute, will prove that spiritual renovation is the
substitute of spiritual renovation What the text, however, actually proves,
as every plain reader can see is, that Christian circumcision the
circumcision made without hands i.e. spiritual renovation, is an essential
prerequisite to Christian baptism, which is immersion. This is precisely what
the text proves. It meets at once both the errors of Pedobaptists on the
subject of baptism. He continues: “Again he says in Col. ii. 11, 12 ‘Ye are
circumcised,’ &c., (quoting the entire passage)The meaning is, in other
words, that having been baptized spiritually, ye are thereby circumcised
spiritually!” Who denies that spiritual baptism involves spiritual
circumcision? But what proof does that afford that outward baptism is a
substitute for outward circumcision? These are all the “numerous other
passages” he quotes. I have given all the texts I ever saw or heard quoted,
to prove that baptism is the substitute of circumcision. But this is not all
that the Bible says about it. On the contrary, it affords the clearest proof
that baptism cannot be the substitute of circumcision. 1. In the first place
we may repeat the observation before made that the covenant in Gen. xvii. in
its very terms, absolutely prohibits the observance of any other rite than
circumcision, as its token, while it remains. This rite is stated to be the
covenant which those who are entitled to its promises should keep. “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 it shall
be a token of the covenant.” The same word everlasting, which, as our
brethren say, establishes the perpetuity of the covenant, is also applied to
this rite. “ My covenant shall be in your flesh for an ever lasting
covenant.” According to the very terms of the covenant, the rite of
circumcision must be coeval with the covenant itself both are called
everlasting. There is no possibility of a substitute under the covenant. 2. If, as our brethren affirm, the covenant of circumcision is still in
force-if the Gospel Church is the same with the Jewish Church- if the
principles on which the Jewish Church was founded, are established in the
Gospel Church, the only difference being the substitution of one external
rite for another, which holds precisely the place of the first, then all that
is said in the New Testament against the observance of circumcision-all the
reasonings and expostulations of Paul against it, apply with their full
weight against infant baptism. Our brethren have taken their position
directly in the range of Paul’s artillery in Galatians leveled against the
Judaizing teachers, and they cannot escape its effect. The reasonings of
Paul, though directed against the rite of circumcision, were still more directed
against the principles on which it was founded. Can it be credited that he
would reason thus against those principles, if they were the very principles
on which the Church of Christ was founded?-and against that rite, if
Christianity had established a rite precisely equivalent, upon the same
principles, and holding precisely the same place? 3. If baptism were a
substitute for circumcision, something clear and unambiguous must have been
said about it in the New Testament. On this point I have a right to speak
with entire confidence. The circumstances of the Church, as they are
presented in the Acts and Epistles, were such as to render silence in regard
to such a fact as this, on the part of the Apostles, absolutely impossible.
There was a schism between the Jewish and Gentile Christians on this very
question-a schism which it would have been perfectly easy to heal by just
insisting that baptism takes the place of circumcision, while the covenant
was still in force, with such “enlargement of privilege,” as might be
expected in the Gospel dispensation. If this were so, Paul could not have
failed to mention it in the Epistle to the Galatians. Not a word here about a
substitute but everything making against such a supposition. If it were so,
it could not have failed of a distinct mention in the Apostolic Council
assembled at Jerusalem, to consider this question of the application of
circumcision to the Gentiles. (Acts xv) Indeed if this were so how could
there have been any schism? How could such a question ever have been mooted?
Did not the Apostles know all about it? Did they not instruct the early
disciples, both Jews and Gentiles, in all that pertained to Christianity? If
baptism held precisely the place of circumcision as the seal of the covenant
the covenant itself remaining in full force, who could have imagined that
those who had been baptized must also be circumcised? Who would have thought
of two “seals” at the same time of the same covenant ? If, however, in some unaccountable manner, a general ignorance
prevailed in the Church in regard to this simple A B C truth of the gospel,
(as it is esteemed by our brethren) how could the Apostles have failed in
that Council to have given them the instruction they needed? How could James,
when he gave his opinion, “Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them
which from among the Gentiles have turned to God,” have failed to give this
plain reason, that since baptism is now the appointed seal of the covenant
instead of circumcision, to impose circumcision upon them would be
inconsistent and absurd? Would not Dr. White or Dr. Peters have said
something of this kind if they had stood one in the place of James, and the
other in the place of Peter? I affirm, then, and I am certain that I have the
common sense of every reader with me, that if this position of our brethren
were correct, there could have been no schism or dissension in the Church
similar to that brought to view in the 15th of Acts and the Epistle to the
Galatians; or if, by any unaccountable ignorance, such a schism had arisen,
in attempting to heal it this thing must have been distinctly stated. And
since not the least intimation is given of any such thing the inference is
irresistible that nothing of the kind is true. 4. There is one passage which puts an absolute and decisive negative
upon this question. It is in Acts xxi. 20, 21, 25, where James and the Elders
at Jerusalem say to Paul, “Thou seest, brother, how many 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. As touching the Gentiles which
believe, we have written and concluded that they observe NO SUCH THING, save
only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood
and from strangled, and from fornication.” But, I ask, did they not teach the
Gentiles to observe baptism, which, according to our brethren, is
substantially THE SAME THING with circumcision, a token and seal of the same
covenant, its appointed substitute, to be applied to the same description of
persons, founded on the same law, and occupying the same place in the Divine
economy? And could they do that, and then say that they had commanded the
Gentiles that they observe NO SUCH THING as circumcision? RECAPITULATION AND RESULT I HERE close my examination of the Covenant of Circumcision. I have
shown from its nature that it cannot be the Covenant of Grace; that it is
legal in its form and in its spirit, a part of the Mosaic economy, and
identical with the Old Covenant. I have shown that its blessings are mainly
national and external and in no sense spiritual and new-covenant blessings. I
have shown that its rite is a positive ordinances to be kept as it is
commanded, or not at all. I have shown the uses of the rite of circumcision,
from none of which baptism can be inferred; and lastly, I have shown that the
covenant has expired, and that its rite is abolished without any substitute.
We come then inevitably to the conclusion arrived at before by many of the
most eminent biblical scholars of the age, that “the Abrahamic Covenant
furnishes no ground for infant baptism.” |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Please direct your comments to Mike Krall.