Zacharias Ursinus (1534-1583) on Infant Baptism and Circumcision

Like many other Christians, I once quarrelled with whether I ought to adhere to Paedobaptism (baptism for covenant children, which of course includes baptism for previously unbaptized adult converts) or Credobaptism-only (baptism only for those who can make a profession of faith). Admittedly, for a time I adhered to Credobaptism. I was baptized as an infant in the Dutch Reformed Church, and after my conversion in 2008, I considered getting re-baptized, as many other recent converts have done. That never happened, however. I wondered why all the prominent Reformed theologians in history, who based their writings on the principle of sola Scriptura, adhered to infant baptism. I had the same argument as Credobaptists: it simply isn’t explicitly taught in Scripture! Little did I know at the time of the overarching meta-narrative of the covenant that is found throughout Scripture, and its implications on the baptism of children. I wrote an article on the biblical rationale behind covenantal infant baptism which is available here:

https://deovivendiperchristum.wordpress.com/2013/07/30/jake-griesel-on-the-biblical-rationale-behind-infant-baptism/

Key to my contentment with Paedobaptism and my consequent rejection of the Credobaptism-only position (and decision not to get re-baptized), was reading Zacharias Ursinus’ (1534-1583) exposition on infant baptism in his Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism. Admittedly, it is a rather long piece to read, but it is definitely worth it:

Image

Question 74. Are infants also to be baptized?

Answer. Yes, for since they as well as the adult are included in the covenant and church of God; and since redemption from sin by the blood of Christ, and the Holy Ghost, the author of faith, is promised to them no less than to the adult; they must, therefore, by baptism, as a sign of the covenant, be also admitted into the Christian Church, and be distinguished from the children of infidels, as was done in the old covenant or testament by circumcision, instead of which baptism was instituted in the new covenant.

 

EXPOSITION.

For a proper understanding of this question we shall consider, first, Who ought to receive, and Who ought to desire baptism? Those who are not jet disciples of Christ, not being of the number of those who are called, and not believing the doctrine of the gospel, nor obeying the ministry, are not to receive baptism. Nor ought those who feel that they are not the disciples of Christ to desire baptism. And the reason why they ought neither to receive, nor desire baptism, is, because Christ says, first, teach or make all nations my disciples, and then baptize them. Hence all, and only those are to be baptized according to the command of Christ, who are, and ought to be regarded as members of the visible church, whether they be adults professing repentance and faith, or infants born in the church; for all the children of those that believe are included in the covenant, and church of God, unless they exclude themselves. They are, therefore, also disciples of Christ, because they are born in the church, or school of Christ; and hence the Holy Spirit teaches them in a manner adapted to their capacity and age.

From what we have now said, we may easily determine whether infants are to be baptized. If they are disciples of Christ, and included in the church, (which we may fully establish by the covenant itself, and many other passages of Scripture) they are fit subjects for baptism. The Catechism adduces four reasons why infants, as well as adults, are to be baptized.

First, all that belong to the covenant and church of God are to be baptized. But the children of Christians, as well as adults, belong to the covenant and church of God. Therefore they are to be baptized as well as adults. The major proposition is proven from the command of Christ, which requires the whole church to be baptized. “Go, and teach all nations, baptizing them, &c. And Paul says: “By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body.” (1 Cor. 12:13.) The minor proposition is clear from the covenant itself in which God declares, “I will be a God unto thee and thy seed after thee:” and from what Christ says: “Sufer little children to come unto me; for of such is the kingdom of heaven” (Gen. 17:7Matt. 19:14.)

Secondly, those are not to be excluded from baptism, to whom the benefit of the remission of sins, and of regeneration belongs. But this benefit belongs to the infants of the church; for redemption from sin, by the blood of Christ and the Holy Ghost, the author of faith, is promised to them no less than to the adult. Therefore they ought to be baptized The major of this syllogism is proven by the words of Peter: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ; for the promise is unto you and your children.” “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we.” (Acts 2:38,3510:47.) The same thing is established by this argument:

Those unto whom the things signified belong, unto them the sign also belongs, unless there be some condition in the way of using it which would forbid it, or unless there be some circumstance connected with the institution which would not admit of the observance of the rite, as females formerly were debarred from circumcision on account of their sex, and as infants at this day are excluded from the Lord s Supper because of their incapacity of shewing the Lord s death, and proving themselves. The minor is manifest from the language of the covenant: “I will be a God unto thee, and thy seed after thee:” and from the following passages of Scripture: “Suffer little children to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” “The promise is unto you, and your children.” “Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant, which God made with our fathers.” “Your children are holy.” “For if the root be holy, so are the branches.” (Matt. 19:14Acts 2:393:251 Cor. 7:14Rom. 11:10.) So John the Baptist was sanctified from his mother s womb. He who will now diligently examine these testimonies from the word of God, will see that it is not only lawful, but that baptism ought to be administered to infants also: for they are holy; the promise is unto them; the kingdom of heaven is theirs; and God, who is certainly not the God of the wicked, declares that he will also be their God. Neither is there any condition in infants which would forbid the use of baptism. Who then can forbid water, or exclude them from baptism, seeing that they are partakers with the whole church of the same blessings?

3. A sacrament, which God has instituted to be a solemn rite of initiation into the church, and which is designed to distinguish the church from all the various sects, ought to be extended to all, of whatever age they may be, to whom the covenant and reception into the church rightfully belong.  Baptism now is such a sacrament. Therefore it ought to be administered to all ages, and as a necessary consequence to infants also; for to whom the final cause belongs, to him the effect is properly and necessarily attributed.

Fourthly, under the Old Testament infants were circumcised as well as adults. Baptism occupies the place of circumcision in the New Testament, and has the same use that circumcision had in the Old Testament. There fore infants are to be baptized as well as adults. The first proposition needs no proof. The second is proven by what the apostle Paul says: “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 are also risen with him.” (Col. 2:1112.) Baptism, therefore, is our circumcision, or the sacrament by which the same things are confirmed unto us, and to as many under the New Testament as under the Old by circumcision.

The Anabaptists, therefore, in denying baptism to the children of the church, do not only deprive them of their rights, but they also prevent the grace of God from being seen in its richness, since God wills that the off spring of the faithful should be included amongst the members of the church, even from the womb: yea they manifestly detract from the grace of the New Covenant, and narrow down that of the old, inasmuch as they refuse to extend baptism to infants, to whom circumcision was formerly extended; they weaken the comfort of the church, and of faithful parents; they set aside the solemn obligation by which God will have the offspring of his people consecrated to him from their very infancy, distinguished, and separated from the world; they weaken in parents and children the sense of gratitude, and the desire which they should have to perform their obligations to God; they boldly contradict the apostles who declare that water should not be forbidden those to whom the Holy Ghost is given; they wickedly keep back from Christ infants whom he has commanded to be brought to him; and lastly, they narrow down the universal command of Christ which requires that all should be baptized. From all these things it is clear that the denial of infant baptism is no trifling error, but a grievous heresy, in direct opposition to the word of God, and the comfort of the church. Wherefore this and similar follies of the sect of the Anabaptists should be carefully avoided, since they have, without doubt, been hatched by the devil, and are detestable heresies which they have fabricated from various errors and blasphemies.

Obj. 1. No doctrine is to be received which the Scriptures do not teach expressly, nor by example. But the Scriptures do not teach the doctrine of infant baptism by any command or example. Therefore, it is not to be received by the church. Ans. We deny the minor proposition: for we have the express command, “Baptize all nations,” which includes the children of the church. There .are, also, instances recorded in the Scriptures where whole families were baptized by the Apostles, without any intimation that the infant members of these families were excluded. “Lydia was baptized and her household.” The Philippian jailor “was baptized and all his.” “I baptized also the household of Stephanus. (Acts 16:15331 Cor. 1:16.) To this answer the following objections are brought forward:

Obj. 1. But Christ does not expressly command that infants should be baptized. Ans. Neither does he expressly say that adults, men, women, citizens, husbandmen, fullers, and other artizans, such as the Anabaptists for the most part are, should be baptized. He commands that all who are included in the covenant and church of God should be baptized, of whatever age or sex, or rank they may be. Nor is there any necessity that there should be an express reference to every age and rank in general laws and commands; because what is thus enjoined, is binding upon a whole class, and so includes all the separate parts which are comprehended in it. The- Anabaptists themselves do not exclude women from the Lord’s Supper, and yet they have no express command, nor example for this practice in the Scriptures. We have a general command in relation to baptism: for it is said, “Go, and teach all nations, baptizing them,” &c. This command requires that all who are disciples should be baptized. But infants are disciples, because they are born in the church, and are taught after their manner. Peter, likewise, commands the same thing when he says, “The promise is unto you and your children; therefore be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ.” “Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we.” (Acts 2:3910:47.) Paul teaches the same thing when he says that we are circumcised in Christ, and buried with him by baptism.  Therefore, our baptism has taken the place of circumcision, which substitution is equal to an express command.

Obj. 2. Those who are to be baptized must be first taught, for it is said, “teach all nations, baptizing them,” &c. But infants cannot be taught.

Therefore, they are not fit subjects for baptism. Ans. The major proposition is true of adults, who are capable of being taught, from which class of persons the first members of the church were gathered. These Christ command first to be taught, and then to be baptized, so as to be distinguished from the world. But it is false if applied to infants who are born in the church, or who become connected with it when their parents believe and make a profession of their faith; because, Christ does not speak of infants, but of adults, who are capable of being taught, and who ought not to be received into the church unless they are first taught. Infants are included in the covenant, because God says, “I will be a God unto thee and thy seed,” even before they were capable of being instructed. Therefore, they are also to be baptized.

Obj. 3., But, in the examples recorded in the Scriptures where it is said whole families were baptized, the whole, by a figure of speech, is taken for a part, so that these instances merely teach that those who believed and made a confession of their faith were baptized. Therefore, infant baptism cannot be proven from these examples. Ans. We deny the antecedent; because the Apostles in recording these household baptisms intimate no such exclusion, and it is wrong to have recourse to a figure of speech, when there is no reason for rejecting the natural interpretation of any passage of Scripture.

Obj. 4. There are two reasons in favor of this synecdoche: the one is, that the Apostles did nothing contrary to the command and institution of Christ; the other is, that the circumstances connected with these examples exclude infants; for it is said, “they preached the word to all that were in his house;” “that they rejoiced,” and “that they ministered to the saints;” which cannot be applied to infants. Therefore, they are excluded.  Ans. The first reason which intimates that infant baptism is opposed to the appointment of Christ, is false, for Christ wills that all who belong to him and his church should be separated from the world by baptism, as we have shown. It is not true, therefore, that the Apostles refused to administer baptism to infants, according to the institution of Christ. And as to the second reason, it is of no force; for the children could be baptized with their parents, although none but their parents and other members of the family of adult age heard the words of the Apostles, and ministered unto their wants; because their age might exclude them from understanding the doctrine of the Apostles, or from ministering to them, but not from baptism, any more than from salvation. Hence, it was said to Cornelius, “Peter shall tell thee words whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.” Rejecting, therefore, such vain cavils, we must firmly hold to the doctrine that infant baptism was commanded by Christ, and was always practiced by the Apostles and the whole church. Augustin says: “The whole church holds to the doctrine of infant baptism by tradition” And he concludes: “What the whole church holds and has always retained, although it has not been decreed by any council, that it is just as proper for us to believe, as if it had been delivered and handed down by apostolic authority “

Obj. 2. Those who do not believe, are not to be baptized; for it is said, “He that believeth and is baptized,” &c. But infants do not believe.  Therefore, they are not to be baptized. Faith is necessarily required for the use of baptism, for he that believeth not shall be damned. But the sign of grace ought not to be given to such as are condemned. Ans. 1.  The first proposition is not true, if understood generally; for circumcision was applied to infants, although they were not capable of exercising faith.

It must, therefore, be understood of adults only, who are not to be baptized except they believe. Neither can our opponents say of adults that they do certainly believe. If infants, therefore, are not to be baptized because they do not believe, then neither are those to be baptized who have arrived to years of understanding, because no one can certainly know whether they have faith or not. Simon Magus was baptized, and yet he was a hypocrite.  But, say our opponents, the church ought to be satisfied with a profession of faith. This we admit, and would add, that to be born in the church, is, to infants, the same thing as a profession of faith. 2. Faith is, indeed, necessary to the use of baptism with this distinction. Actual faith is required in adults, and an inclination to faith in infants. There are, there fore, four terms in this syllogism, or there is a fallacy in understanding that as spoken particularly, which must be understood generally. Those who do not believe, that is, who have no faith at all, neither by profession nor by inclination, are not to be baptized. But infants born of believing parents have faith as to inclination. 8. We also deny the minor proposition; for infants do believe after their manner, or according to the condition of their age; they have an inclination to faith. Faith is in infants potentially and by inclination, although not actually as in adults. For, as infants born of ungodly parents who are without the church, have no actual wickedness, but only an inclination thereto, so those who are born of godly parents have no actual holiness, but only an inclination to it; not according to nature, but according to the grace of the covenant. And still further: infants have the Holy Ghost, and are regenerated by him. John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother s womb, and Jeremiah is said to have been sanctified before he came out of the womb. (Luke 1:15Jer. 1:5.) If infants now have the Holy Ghost, he certainly works in them regeneration, good inclinations, new desires, and such other things as are necessary for their salvation, or he at least supplies them with every thing that is requisite for their baptism, according to the declaration of Peter, “Can any man forbid water to them who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we.” It is for this reason that Christ enumerates little children amongst those that believe, saying, “Whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me.” (Matt. 18:6.) In as much now as infants are fit subjects for baptism, they do not profane it as the Anabaptists wickedly affirm.

Obj. 8. But if the sign of the covenant belongs to all those to whom its promise belongs, then the Lord s Supper ought also to be administered to infants, because it is also a sign of the covenant. But it is not administered to infants. Therefore, they ought not to be baptized. Ans. We do not say that every sign ought to be applied to infants; but only that there must be some sign of initiation into the church, which, in the new covenant, is baptism. This does not exclude infants, for it merely requires the Holy Ghost, and faith, whether it be actual or potential, as appears from the words of Peter, “Can any man forbid water,” &c. Or, if the objection be thus framed: Infants ought to be admitted to the Lord s Supper if they are to be baptized, in as much as the Lord s Supper is designed for the whole church, as well as baptism. But they are not admitted to the Lord s Supper. Therefore, they are not to be baptized: We reply, by denying the consequence, because there is a great difference between baptism and the Lord s Supper. Baptism is the sacrament of initiation, and reception into the church, so that none are to be admitted to the Lord s Supper, unless they be first baptized. But the Lord s Supper is the sacrament of our abiding in the church, or it is the confirmation of our reception: for God has instituted it that he might declare, and seal unto us, this truth, that having once received us into the church, he will for ever preserve us, so that we shall not fall away from it; and that he will also continue the benefits once bestowed upon us, and will feed and nourish us upon the body and blood of Christ unto eternal life. Adults, who are beset with various temptations and trials need this support. Again: regeneration by the Holy Ghost, and faith, or an inclination to faith and repentance are sufficient for baptism; but in the Lord s Supper there are conditions added, and required which exclude infants from its use. It is required of those that observe it, that they shew the Lord’s death, and examine themselves whether they have repentance and faith. In as much now as infants are incapacitated to do this on account of their age, it is evident that they are justly excluded from the Lord s Supper, but not from baptism. It does not follow, therefore, that infants are to be at once admitted to the Lord s Supper, because they are to be baptized; for they are to be admitted only to those sacraments which are signs of reception into the covenant and church, and which have no conditions that exclude them on account of their age. Baptism now is such a sacrament in the New Testament; but it is different with the Lord’s Supper.

Obj. 4. But if baptism has come in the place of circumcision, then none but males ought now to be baptized, and they on the eighth day after their birth. But both males and females are now baptized. Therefore, baptism has not taken the place of circumcision. Ans. Baptism has not succeeded circumcision in all the circumstances connected with it, but in the thing signified, arid as to its end and use. The two sacraments agree in these things; whilst they differ as to the circumstance of age and sex. God restricted circumcision expressly to the males, and spared the females. Yet he included them among the males, in as much as being born of circumcised parents was to them in the place of circumcision. They were circumcised in the males, or what is the same thing, they were accounted as circumcised. It is for this reason that Christ calls a holy woman “a daughter of Abraham;” and the sons of Jacob said: “we cannot give our sister to one that is uncircumcised,” thus making a distinction between the expressions our sister and one that is uncircumcised. (Luke 13:16Gen. 34:14.) God, therefore, formerly made an exception in the case of females, and ordained circumcision on the eighth day. But in baptism these things are not determined; but the command is general, requiring all the children of the faithful to be ingrafted into the church, whether it be on the eighth day, or immediately after their birth.

Theses concerning Baptism.

1. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, by which Christ testifies to the faithful who are baptized with water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, the forgiveness of all their sins, the giving of the Holy- Spirit, and ingrafting into the church and into his own body; whilst they, on the other hand, profess to receive these benefits from God, and will and ought, therefore, henceforth, to live unto him and to serve him. This same baptism was begun by John the Baptist, and carried forward by the Apostles. John baptized in the name of Christ, who was to suffer and rise again; the Apostles baptized in the name of Christ, as having suffered and risen from the dead.

2. The first end of baptism instituted by God is, that he might thereby declare and testify to us, that he cleanses those who are baptized by his blood and Spirit from all their sins, and therefore engrafts them into the body of Christ and makes them partakers of all his benefits. 2. That baptism might be a solemn reception or initiation of every one into the visible church, and a mark by which the church might be known from all other religions. 3. That it might be a public and solemn profession of our faith in Christ, and of our obligation to faith and obedience to him. 4. That it might be an admonition of our burial in afflictions, and of our rising out of them and deliverance from them.

3. Baptism has the power to declare or seal according to the command of God, and the promise which Christ has joined to it in its lawful use; for Christ baptizes us by the hand of his ministers, just as he speaks through them.

4. There is, therefore, in baptism a double water; the one external and visible, which is elementary; the other internal, invisible and heavenly, which is the blood and Spirit of Christ. There is, also, a double washing in baptism; the one external, visible, and signifying, viz: the sprinkling and pouring of water, which is perceptible by the members and senses of the body; the other is internal, invisible, and signified, viz: the remission of sins on account of the blood of Christ shed for us, and our regeneration by the Holy Spirit arid engrafting into his body, which is spiritual, and perceived only by faith and the Spirit. Lastly, there is a double dispenser of baptism: the one an external dispenser of the external, which is the minister of the church, baptizing us by his hand with water; the other an internal dispenser of the internal, which is Christ himself, baptizing us with his blood and Spirit.

5. Yet the water is not changed into the blood or Spirit of Christ, nor is the blood of Christ present in the water, or in the same place with the water. Nor are the bodies of those who are baptized washed with this visibly; nor is the Holy Spirit, by his substance or virtue, more in this water than elsewhere; but he works in the hearts of those who are baptized in the lawful use of baptism, and sprinkles and washes them spiritually by the blood of Christ, whilst he uses this external symbol as a means, and as a visible word or promise to stir up and confirm the faith of those who are baptized.

6. When baptism is, therefore, said to be the laver or washing of regeneration, to save us, or to wash away sins, it is meant that the external baptism is a sign of the internal, that is, of regeneration, salvation and of spiritual absolution; and this internal baptism is said to be joined with that which is external, in the right and proper use of it.

7. Yet sin is so washed away in baptism, that we are delivered from exposure to divine wrath and from the condemnation of everlasting punishment, whilst the Holy Ghost commences in us the work of regeneration and conformity with God. Remissions of sins, however, continue to the end of life.

8. All, and only those who are renewed or being renewed, receive baptism lawfully, being baptized for those ends for which Christ instituted this sacrament.

9. The church administers baptism lawfully to all, and only to those whom she ought to regard among the number of the regenerate, or as members of Christ.

10. Since the infant children of Christians are also included in the church, into which Christ will have all those who belong to him to be received and enrolled by baptism; and as baptism has been substituted in the place of circumcision, by which (as well to the infants as to the adults belonging to the seed of Abraham,) justification, regeneration and reception into the church were sealed by and for the sake of Christ; and as no one can forbid water that those should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit purifying their hearts, it follows that those infants should be baptized, who are either born in the church, or come into it from the world with their parents.

11. As the promise of the gospel, so baptism being unworthily received, that is, before conversion, is ratified and tends to salvation to those who repent, so that the use of it which was before unlawful is now lawful.

12. The impiety of the minister does not make baptism void, if only it be performed in the promise and faith of Christ. It is for this reason that the true church does not re-baptize those who have been baptized by heretics, but instructs them in the true doctrine respecting Christ and baptism.

13. And as the covenant once made with God, is also after sins have been committed, perpetually ratified in the case of such as believe, so baptism also being once received, confirms all those who repent in relation to the forgiveness of sins during their whole lives; and, therefore, neither ought to be repeated, nor deferred to the close of life, as if it then only cleansed from sin, when no more sins are committed after it is received.

14. All those who are baptized with water, whether adults or infants, are not made partakers of the grace of Christ, for the eternal election of God and his calling to the kingdom of Christ, is free.

15. Nor are all those who are not baptized excluded from the grace of Christ, for not the want, but the contempt of baptism excludes men from the covenant of God made with the faithful and their children.

16. Since the administration of the sacraments forms a part of the ecclesiastical ministry, those who are not called to this, and especially women, ought not to take upon themselves the right and authority to baptize.

17. Such rites as have been added to baptism by men, as the consecration of the water, tapers, exorcisms, anointing with oil, salt, crosses, spittle, and things of a similar character, are justly condemned in the church of Christ, as corruptions of the sacraments.

 

OF CIRCUMCISION.

The last two general propositions under the subject of baptism, are closely allied to the doctrine of circumcision. Whatever, too, may be said upon the subject of circumcision, is intimately connected with baptism, and is, there fore, properly considered at this point. The things which claim special attention in connection with the subject of circumcision, are the following:

  1. What circumcision is:
  2. Why it was instituted:
  3. Why it was abolished:
  4. What there is in the place of circumcision:
  5. In what circumcision and baptism agree and differ:
  6. Why Christ was circumcised.

 

I. WHAT CIRCUMCISION IS.

Circumcision was a rite by which all the males among the children of Israel were circumcised according to the command of God, that it might be a seal of the covenant made with the posterity of Abraham. Or, it consisted in cutting off the fore-skin of all the males among the children of Israel by the command of God, that it might be a sign of the covenant made with Abraham and his posterity, signifying and sealing to them the cutting off the fore-skin of their hearts for the sake of the promised seed which should be born, distinguishing and separating them from all other nations, and binding them to faith and obedience to God. “This is my covenant which ye shall keep, between me and you, and thy seed after thee: every man-child among you shall be circumcised,” &c. “He received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith,” &c. “The Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart,” &c. (Gen. 17:10.  Rom. 4:11Deut. 80:6.) Circumcision was binding only upon the Jews. It was optional with other nations to be circumcised, or not, if they embraced the Jewish religion.

The membership of the Jewish Church was made up of three different classes of persons. There were first Israelites, those who were born of the seed of Abraham, who were bound by the law to observe circumcision, and other rites. Then there were proselytes, persons who embraced the Jewish religion from other nations, and who submitted to circumcision, and the whole ceremonial law for the confirmation of their faith. There is a reference to this class of persons in Acts 2:10Matt. 28:15. Then there were lastly religious men, who were converted to the Jewish faith from among the Gentiles, and embraced the doctrine arid promises of God; but were not circumcised; neither did they conform to the ceremonial law; because the Gentiles were left free, either to conform to the customs of the Jewish religion or not. Of this class we may mention Naaman, the Syrian, the Ethiopian eunuch, and others of whom we read in Acts 2:5.

Obj. None but males were circumcised. Therefore females were excluded from the covenant of grace. Ans. They were included in the circumcision of the males; because God spared their weaker sex. It was sufficient for them that they were born of circumcised parents, and were in view of this included in the covenant and seed of Abraham.

 

II. WHY CIRCUMCISION WAS INSTITUTED.

It was instituted, 1. That it might be a sign of the grace of God to the posterity of Abraham, and that for two reasons; because God would receive into the covenant those that believed on account of the Messiah, which was to come; and also, because he would grant them the land of Canaan, and there give his church a sure resting place until the Messiah would make his appearance. 2. That it might be the means of binding Abraham and his posterity to gratitude, or to repentance and faith, and thus to the observance of the whole law. 3. That it might be a badge of distinction between the Jews and other nations and religionists. 4. That it might be the sacrament of initiation and reception into the visible church. 5. That it might signify that all men are unholy by natural generation, and remind them of their natural uncleanness, and of the importance of guarding against all forms of sin, especially those which are in opposition to the law of chastity. “Circumcise the fore-skin of your heart, and be no more stiff necked.” “Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, and take away the fore skins of your heart.” (Deut. 10:16Jer. 4:4.) 6. That it might be a sign to declare unto them that the way of deliverance from sin, would be through Christ, who should be born of the seed of Abraham. “In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.” (Gen. 22:18.)

 

III. WHY CIRCUMCISION WAS ABOLISHED.

It was abolished because the thing which it signified became real; and also because it had been instituted for the purpose of separating the Jews from all other nations, which state of things ceased after the coming of Christ. It became necessary, therefore, that the type of circumcision should be abolished, when the Messiah made his appearance, and the nations of the earth were no longer to be separated, as they had been; for it is the part of a wise law-giver when certain causes are changed, to modify and change those laws and institutions which are depending upon these causes.

 

IV. WHAT THERE IS IN THE PLACE OF CIRCUMCISION.

Baptism occupies the place of circumcision in the New Testament. One sacrament succeeds another, when the one is abolished, and the other takes its place, in such a way as to signify the same thing by different rites, and to have the same design and use. That baptism has succeeded circumcision in this sense is plain from what the apostle Paul says: “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 also ye are risen with him,” &c. (Col. 2:1112.) The Apostle in these words proves by two arguments that there is now no advantage derived from the circumcision of the flesh, and that it is no longer to be observed in the Christian Church. The first is, because we have in Christ a spiritual circumcision one not made with hands, whose sign is a circumcision of the flesh, or because Christ has now fulfilled what circumcision prefigured. The second is because baptism has now the same signification and use, which circumcision formerly had, unless that baptism is the sign of that which circumcision shadowed forth. This passage, therefore, teaches that baptism is the same to Christians, which circumcision was to the Jews. And that baptism has taken the place of circumcision, may also be proven from the fact that both sacraments have the same end. Both are signs of our adoption into the family of God. For as the infants of the Jews and proselytes were circumcised on the eighth day, as those who were members of the church by birth, whilst adults received circumcision when they made a profession of the Jewish religion; so the children of Christians are baptized in their infancy, whilst those who have arrived to years of understanding are not baptized, unless they have made a profession of the doctrine of Christ.

 

V. IN WHAT CIRCUMCISION AND BAPTISM AGREE AND DIFFER.

They agree, 1. In their chief design, which is to seal unto us the promise of grace by and for the sake of Christ, which promise is always the same. 2. Both signify our regeneration, and bind us to faith and obedience. 3. Both are sacraments of initiation and reception into the church. They differ, 1. In outward rites and ceremonies. 2. In the circumstance of age and sex. None but males were circumcised, and these always on the eighth day after their birth, which is different in regard to baptism. 3. They differ as to their signification. Circumcision promised grace on account of the Messiah which was to come; baptism on account of the Messiah already come. 4. They differ as to the promise which is peculiar to each. Circumcision had connected with it the promise of a temporal blessing, that the church should find a sure resting place in the land of Canaan until the Messiah would come; baptism has no such special promise of any temporal blessing. 5. They differ in the obligation which they impose. Circumcision bound those who observed it to keep the whole ceremonial, judicial and moral law; baptism binds us to the moral law only, or which is the same thing, to repentance and faith. 6. They differ in their objects and duration. Circumcision was instituted for the posterity of Abraham alone, and was designed to continue only to the coming of the Messiah; baptism was instituted for all nations desiring to come into connection with the church, and will continue to the end of the world.

 

VI. WHY CHRIST WAS CIRCUMCISED.

There was nothing to require the circumcision of Christ, inasmuch as it could not seal or confer anything upon him, for he had no sin. Yet he submitted to circumcision, 1. That he might establish his membership amongst those who were circumcised. It was for the same reason that he was baptized. Christ then submitted himself to the initiatory sacrament of both churches that he might declare that he was the head, the saviour, and corner-stone of both, and that he would constitute one church. 2.  That he might declare that he took all our sins upon himself, that he would satisfy for them, and would deliver us from all our guilt. “He hath made him to be sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” “The chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with His stripes we are healed. (2 Cor. 5:21Is. 58:5.) 3.  That he might declare that it was for our sakes that he became subject to the law, and that he perfectly fulfilled it by taking upon himself its curse in order that he might effect our redemption. 4. The circumcision of Christ was a part of his humiliation and ransom for our sins.  

One thought on “Zacharias Ursinus (1534-1583) on Infant Baptism and Circumcision

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s