Thoughts on Baptism

BAPTISM IS NOT CIRCUMCISION

Baptism has, by very many, been considered the antitype of circumcision, or as filling the same place in the New Testament that circumcision did in the Old. Popular theories have been projected on this hypothesis, and Dr. Clarke incautiously says, It has never been proved that baptism does not supply the place of circumcision. That is not the correct method of viewing the argument. The question is this, Has it ever been proved that baptism is in the place of circumcision? We know it has been inferred, it has been supposed, it has been asserted; but it has not been proved. If the negative could not be proved, that would not be conclusive evidence that the affirmative is true. But in this case it is easy to prove that baptism is not the circumcision of the New Testament by showing what is that circumcision. TOB 65.1

In Romans 2:29, it is said circumcision is that of the heart; in the Spirit, and not in the letter. In chapter 4:11, circumcision is called both a sign and a seal, which, indeed, are the same thing. Ephesians 1:13, 14, says, “Ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance.” When circumcisioin was first given to Abraham, it was called the token of the covenant, in which the promise was made that he should inherit the land. Genesis 17:11. Token is the same as earnest or assurance; equivalent also to sign or seal. Ephesians 1:13, but confirms Romans 2:29;—circumcision is of the heart, in the spirit. And this is further confirmed by Ephesians 4:30: “And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.” Also by 2 Corinthians 1:22: “Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.” TOB 65.2

The Lord said to Abraham that the uncircumcised man child should be cut off; he had no part in the covenant, because he had not the seal or token of the covenant. Even so, we are told in Romans 8:9, “Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.” He has no part in the new covenant because he has not the seal of the Spirit—the circumcision of the heart, which is the seal of the new covenant. This is a point of the utmost importance, involving our relation to the covenant of grace. And there is this difference under the arrangements of the two covenants: under the first, circumcision related to the men children; but under the second, “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female;” that is, no such distinctions are recognized in the provisions of the gospel, but “ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” All classes, all nationalities, must alike receive the circumcision of the heart, and are all, in Christ, “Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” Galatians 3:28, 29. TOB 66.1

There is yet further proof on this point. It has been inferred from the close connection of the statements in Colossians 2:11, 12, that baptism is shown to be circumcision, but the proof is decisively to the contrary. “In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands.” But baptism is administered by hands, as entirely as was circumcision under the old covenant. TOB 67.1

Romans 2:28 says, “For he is not a Jew which is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh.” This exactly corresponds to the evidence already presented, that circumcision or the seal is that of the Spirit—of the heart. But baptism is an outward ordinance, and therefore cannot be that circumcision which is not outward; and such is the circumcision of the New Testament. TOB 67.2

Thinking to relieve themselves of this difficulty, the advocates of that theory say that baptism serves now, as circumcision did then, as “an outward sign of inward grace.” But this is really no relief at all; it makes baptism fulfill the place of circumcision, the very thing which Paul says it does not, he showing that something else does take its place. That statement is very incautiously and imprudently made. TOB 67.3

The Abrahamic covenant, identical with the gospel, ran parallel with the first covenant made with Israel. There was no salvation in the covenant with Israel, only as it led to faith in the offerings and promises of the Abrahamic covenant. Hebrews 9:8-12; 10:4. “Circumcision of the heart” was taught in the law and the prophets, see Deuteronomy 10:16; Jeremiah 4:4, etc., because it was their object to direct to the faith and blessings of the new covenant. Of this, outward circumcision was the sign. But Paul shows that there is no such outward sign now; circumcision of the heart, the antitype, alone remains. TOB 67.4

To baptism is never ascribed the place, nor is it given any of the titles, which the Scriptures apply to typical circumcision. They who give it such place and titles commit two errors; they assign to it that which the Scriptures never assign to it, and destroy the distinctions which exist between the two covenants in regard to the sign or seal, as shown by Paul. TOB 68.1

This theory that baptism occupies in the new covenant the place which circumcision occupied in the old, was invented to uphold the doctrine of infant baptism. It is a pity that first impressions are so strong in any, that, while they renounce infant baptism, they are slow to renounce the means which have been devised for its support. TOB 68.2