Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Some perhaps will ask, How could baptism come in place of circumcision, when .it appears to have been in use before circumcision, ceased? Let me ask another question, How could Solomon reign in the place of David as his successor, when he began to reign before David was dead? There is no more difficulty in one question, than in the other. Though baptism was in use, yet it was not made the peculiar initiating seal of the gospel covenant until after Christ's resurrection.

6

It has been inquired, If baptism succeeds circumcision, why were those baptized, who had already been circumcised?" We answer,

1. We think it has been proved, that both these ordinances were instituted as seals of the same gracious covenant; and therefore the right of infants to baptism will not a all depend on the solution of this question.

2. It is evident from the 15th and 21st chapters of Acts, that infant circumcision was practised, with apostolic approbation, by the Jewish believers in the christian church in Jerusalem, and in other churches, by the

Jews who were members of them. For though the apostles and elders agreed, that infant circumcision ought not to be required of Gentile believers; yet they allowed and approved it among the Jewish converts, who, having been accustomed to it, and knowing it to have been a usage from the time of Abraham, could not at once, be persuaded to relinquish it for another rite.

That infant circumcision was not now regarded by the apostles merely as a ceremony of the Mosaic law, is manifest; because, in this view, as we have before shewn, they utterly disallowed it, and strenuously opposed those who contended for it. They must therefore have regarded it, as that seal of the righteousness of faith,' which was appointed to Abraham, and continued under the patriarchal and Mosaic dispensations. In the christian church, it for a time held the same place among the Jewish, as baptism held among the Gentile believers. Hence it follows, that the seal of the covenant was applied to the infants of believers, in the time, and with the approbation of the apostles, and that baptism succeeded in the place

of circumcision; as a seal of the same cove

nant.

It is no objection to this argument, that the apostles, in some instances, complied with Jewish customs, for these compliances were only occasional: But the observance of infant circumcision among believing Jews was general and constant for a course of years, probably for 30 years together, and this under the eye, and with the advice of all the apostles.

They recommended to the Gentile believers a charitable and pacific condescention to their Jewish brethren in matters, which interfered not with the institutions or doctrines of the gospel; particularly, in an abstinence from offensive meats, and in the observance of favourite days. But they never required or advised the Gentiles to conform to the Jews in the observance of the Abrahamic rite of infant circumcision, though this was a rite, of which the Jewish christians were as tenacious as of any other. The reason is obvious: The Gentile believers observed another rite instituted in its place, namely, infant baptism.

If under the christian dispensation, infant circumcision had been, in itself, wrong, it would not have been allowed to the Jewish believers. If it had been, under present circumstances, an indifferent ceremony, like abstinence from meats, shaving the head, and purification in the temple, it would, for peace sake, have been recommended to the Gentile believers. But as another ordinance was by them used in its place, there would have been an impropriety in their adopting this, and therefore it was not required of them.

3. It is an undeniable fact, that circumcised believers were frequently, if not generally, received to fellowship, in the christian church, without baptism; for all churches had fellowship with the church in Jerusalem; and Jewish and Gentile believers had communion in the same churches. That Christ's first disciples were baptized, we have no evidence. That the twelve partook of the first supper, before christian baptism was so much as instituted, is undeniable; for it is evident from Acts xix. 5, and the author of the letters himself concedes, that John's baptism

was not christian baptism. Now if circumcision was, in the case of the disciples, sufficient for their admission to the great gospel ordinance of the supper, then certainly it was a seal of the gospel covenant; and therefore the baptism of believers, already circumcised, was a matter not of universal necessity, but only of particular expedience. It seems to have taken place chiefly in the case of the Jews, who after Christ's resurrection, had for a time openly opposed the gospel, and the superior evidence which then attended it. Now,

4. There was a manifest propriety in baptizing some who had been circumcised, although baptism and circumcision are supposed to be seals of the same covenant.

The long expected Messiah had now appeared; a clearer dispensation of the covenant of grace, attended with larger promises and more liberal privileges, was now introduced; the way was opened for the admission of all nations into the church of God; and baptism was instituted to be a seal of the covenant, and a badge of distinction between the church and the unbelieving world.

« AnteriorContinuar »